Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: psy on December 31, 2008, 05:54:19 AM
-
in a series of classic experiements done in the early 1950s by Solomon Asch.155
Various numbers of people in a room were given the job of determining which of two lines was longest even though one was obviously longer than the other. Each participant gave his answer in turn. This would be repeated several times. The catch was that all but the last to announce were confederates of the experimenter. They would all either give the right answer or all give the wrong answer. The purpose of the experiments were to determine the effect on the last person.
Only one in four of the subjects manged to remain independent and give the correct answer every time, even though the answer was obvious. Some of those who answered incorrectly were “just going along,” but some actually believed the obviously incorrect answers they gave were correct. Every one of them, even the ones who managed to stay independent, began to doubt their own perceptions.
The effect of the majority's unanimity was to create distrust of one's own perception. In the vast majority of cases it also changed the subject's behavior. In the more extreme cases, it actually altered the person's perceptions.
[source] (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_114.jsp#)
-
Follow that out to this:
One of the most potent forces of mind control is the subtle coercion of public statements. The first statement elicited publicly from the newcomer is, “I am an alcoholic.” Depending on the structure of the meeting attended, it may be said at the very first meeting with little or no thought given to the implications. In some meetings, everyone in the room takes turns introducing themsleves by their first name and “disease.” Perhaps 25 or 50 people will identify themselves uniformly with their first name and “I am an alcoholic.” Then it is up to the pigeon. If he doesn't want to stand out, there is only one choice: to say “I am an alcoholic.” He may have his own idea of what an alcoholic is and feel comfortable stating he is “an alcoholic.” In mind control cults there is rarely if ever any physical coercion. Situations are staged so that people choose “on their own” either the desired course or from only desired options. The pigeon has the option of merely stating his first name. At this point, even this may be desirable for indoctrination purposes. He may then wonder what he is doing there and whether he is suffering “denial.”
Often, out of deference to the room full of friendly faces gazing at him, he will splutter in embarrassment, “I guess I am an alcoholic.” All groupers smile knowingly and affectionately. They understand that this is a milestone in his “recovery.” The pigeon has no idea.
This public admission of being an alcoholic, whether the newcomer knows it yet or not, is the beginning of the acceptance of the authority of AA. Since he is an alcoholic, and has publicly acknowledged himself as such, he must defer to the unanimous opinion of the experts on alcoholism gathered about him for defining who he is. In AA, by definition, an alcoholic is someone who must work the Steps and follow other “suggestions” or die.
“Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps of recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. ... We must obey certain principles, or we die.”158
A newcomer would reject out of hand being told that if he didn't work the Steps he would probably die. To get by this, groupers continuously acknowledge the Steps as “suggestive only.” They then proceed to tell how they nearly died or how others died because their diseased minds told them they didn't need to work the steps. Another way the newcomer becomes afraid to not work the steps is through sincere, genuine fear expressed by the elders through body language. For example, if a newcomer says in casual conversation that he doesn't need the Steps, he's staying sober just fine without them, the groupers will fall silent. Bodies stiffen. All eyes, filled with fear, apprehension or disapproval, will focus on the newcomer. Without verbally contradicting the newcomer, the message is given. Once the message has been non verbally transmitted, the ice may be broken by an elder reminding everyone, “Like the Big Book says, the Steps are but suggestive only.” This is a reminder to the groupers of the Big Book injunction against “preaching” and other forms of open coercion. It is also ostensibly support for the newcomer's position. Everyone knows the Steps are suggestive only. No one has to do anything they don't want to in AA. While the newcomer gets verbal “defense” for not working the Steps, he is alos reminded it is a suggestion. He knows that, as a suggestion, it is the opinion of the unanimous majority that if he continues to be obstinate in not following it, he is “signing his own death warrant.”
In adapting to his new “social circle,” the newcomer learns which comments bring approval and which bring disapproval. People are so kind, friendly and understanding, it is, at the very least, impolite to upset them. The only way to avoid this is to agree. One quickly learns to at least express, if not quite believe, only acceptable ideas.
-
Great post.
Reminds me of the parent groups in programs. This is a very good explanation for the beginning parent-group behavior because almost all of the "veteran" program parents are dedicated to the fallacies of the program's doctrine. This peer pressure is a huge force, especially when the new parents are having doubts due to their gut instinct or strange program activities or ways. The program simply alters the way they perceive reality within the program. This is definitely an intrical part of controlling the "worker bee" parents in the program (cult).
On topic links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confo ... xperiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments)
http://www.zainea.com/socialconformity.htm (http://www.zainea.com/socialconformity.htm)
-
Psy and I have had more than one discussion regarding the evils of AA/NA. Although we may not agree with each other on many aspects of 12 step programs, I DO feel they can be beneficial to a person struggling with some form of addiction, especially in the beginning when a person, who has already "self-determined" that they are an alcoholic or addict. Is there an overwhelming amount of peer pressure at meetings...yes! Some of the pressure is non-verbal as Psy describes and some pressure comes from very vocal members of any given meeting. For the newcomer, everyone in the room is focused on them, the newcomers, eager for them to declare that, "They are powerless over alcohol and their lives have become unmanageable" (step one). They consider getting someone to admit they are alcoholic or an addict a huge success!
Personally, I find that many/most meetings conform to the very tenets that were written in the Big Book of AA back in 1953. Rarely do you find a "pure alcoholic" anywhere around where I live. Most of the people I have meet in AA, IMHO, are all multi-taskers and include addicts, workaholics, sexaholics, shopaholics, etc. For me, the substance of choice does not remove the "ism" part of the disease. I am also a firm believer in self diagnosis when it come to alcoholism or addiction - NO ONE decides for you that you are an addict or alcoholic.
I do not attend meetings much anymore and I have not had a drink in 13 years. However, I attended DAILY meetings during my first 3 years of sobriety...it gave me a design for living that I have modified to fit the way I CHOOSE to live my life. More on this topic later...have to be somewhere else soon!
-
Yes, but you would also be considered an apostate by the cult-like organization in question. They would likely tell newcomers that you are the sort of person that others should not hang around. Amirite?
-
Most of the people I have meet in AA, IMHO, are all multi-taskers and include addicts, workaholics, sexaholics, shopaholics, etc. For me, the substance of choice does not remove the "ism" part of the disease.
For me it just makes the disease concept sound all the more absurd. It sounds like if somebody does anything too much you can add an -aholic suffix and label it a "disease".
-
That's pretty much what's going on, Psy. I think they even have meetings for net-aholics. That was the joke behind Anonymity Anonymous and yes I have had a journalist call me up asking for meeting dates and locations. I should have said April 1st and given the address of the local Shriners club right next door to an AA hall (church of the magic 8 ball) but I guess I was out of sorts that day and didn't think of it till later.
That social pressure thing has given me holy hell all of my life. As a young child, I had to go to school and live in what had been my neighborhood totally shunned by and shunning everyone around me and act like I loved it, was superior and wasn't bothered by the teasing, bullying and rejection one itty little bit. Nope, not me! I was a Super Seedling! The littlest 'Chicklet'! I had the keys to the universe!
Then there was the Program proper for a couple of years. I tell ya, I'm so thoroughly horrified by conformity that I can't play the game well enough to fit in anywhere. I honestly loathe damned near everyone around me on some back channel just about all the time because they do conform. It's more than I can do most of the time to hide my contempt. Makes for a very lonely existence.
-
I dont understnd why the AA thing is even an issue. If an adult chooses to join a cult, club or crazy organisation and they claim it is working for them or they are getting something out of it then all power to them. If it is not,they can walk away at any time, even if it is a cult. This is entirely different to incarcerating a defenceless kid without trial, or sentencing a young person to a attend an institution like a boot camp that practices cruel and unusual punishment. One is a legitimate human rights issue the other is a lifestyle choice.
-
You understand the concept of a "Family Tree" - I hope.
-
I dont understnd why the AA thing is even an issue. If an adult chooses to join a cult, club or crazy organisation and they claim it is working for them or they are getting something out of it then all power to them. If it is not,they can walk away at any time, even if it is a cult. This is entirely different to incarcerating a defenceless kid without trial, or sentencing a young person to a attend an institution like a boot camp that practices cruel and unusual punishment. One is a legitimate human rights issue the other is a lifestyle choice.
In your criteria of what constitutes the TTI, hopefully incomplete, you include:
- "incarcerating a defenceless kid without trial"
- "sentencing a young person to a attend an institution like a boot camp that practices cruel and unusual punishment"
Conspicuously absent from that list is any mention of what might approximate as the concept of "Mind Fuck."
Did you really mean to omit that?
Or do you truly believe that only physical coercion can qualify as torment, and that experiences of emotional or thought coercion (often referred to as "brainwashing") are merely "lifestyle choices?"
I think that most people have found that that last type of coercion has resulted in the greatest and longest lasting trauma post-program. I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but that is my impression and my personal experience.
Pretty much all of the programs in the TTI owe a partial debt either directly or indirectly to Alcoholics Anonymous for philosophy and/or methodology. That is why it tends to be rather reviled by some of the denizens around here.
-
Yes, but you would also be considered an apostate by the cult-like organization in question. They would likely tell newcomers that you are the sort of person that others should not hang around. Amirite?
But Psy, I AM an apostate! I AM also the type of person that Big Book Thumpers warn you about - I am a newcomers worst nightmare! Yes, you are right...lol!
-
That's pretty much what's going on, Psy. I think they even have meetings for net-aholics. That was the joke behind Anonymity Anonymous and yes I have had a journalist call me up asking for meeting dates and locations. I should have said April 1st and given the address of the local Shriners club right next door to an AA hall (church of the magic 8 ball) but I guess I was out of sorts that day and didn't think of it till later.
That social pressure thing has given me holy hell all of my life. As a young child, I had to go to school and live in what had been my neighborhood totally shunned by and shunning everyone around me and act like I loved it, was superior and wasn't bothered by the teasing, bullying and rejection one itty little bit. Nope, not me! I was a Super Seedling! The littlest 'Chicklet'! I had the keys to the universe!
Then there was the Program proper for a couple of years. I tell ya, I'm so thoroughly horrified by conformity that I can't play the game well enough to fit in anywhere. I honestly loathe damned near everyone around me on some back channel just about all the time because they do conform. It's more than I can do most of the time to hide my contempt. Makes for a very lonely existence.
Yeah...I am pretty sure that have a net-aholic...they also have meetings for too much internet gaming!
I hear ya Antigen on the conformity issue. One of the main reasons I live in Venice..the antithesis of conformity; suburbia would be like a living hell everyday. I have a huge family that are all content living in the lovely hamlet of Burbank..ugghh!! I think I was happiest living on a little island off the Gulf Coast of Florida and raising my son there. Isolating, yes, but nice nevertheless!
-
Conspicuously absent from that list is any mention of what might approximate as the concept of "Mind Fuck."
Did you really mean to omit that?
Or do you truly believe that only physical coercion can qualify as torment, and that experiences of emotional or thought coercion (often referred to as "brainwashing") are merely "lifestyle choices?"
I think that most people have found that that last type of coercion has resulted in the greatest and longest lasting trauma post-program. I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but that is my impression and my personal experience.
Pretty much all of the programs in the TTI owe a partial debt either directly or indirectly to Alcoholics Anonymous for philosophy and/or methodology. That is why it tends to be rather reviled by some of the denizens around here.
What I meant is that if an adult chooses to join AA or scientology or whatever, then the "mind fuck" is to some extent consensual. If a kid is sent to a tti school or straight like treatment centre whether by physical force or just because they are under 18 & dont really have a choice it is more of a rape. Particularly if they complain & are not removed. Rape is a crime and a human rights abuse. Sex is a recreational activity.
-
Most of the people I have meet in AA, IMHO, are all multi-taskers and include addicts, workaholics, sexaholics, shopaholics, etc. For me, the substance of choice does not remove the "ism" part of the disease.
For me it just makes the disease concept sound all the more absurd. It sounds like if somebody does anything too much you can add an -aholic suffix and label it a "disease".
I understand that you don't agree Psy, but the DMSIV classifies "alcoholism and addiction" as a disease. Personally,I like to view it from my doc's perspective; he just says that I am not wired the same way as most people. Most drug affect me differently that others, I wake up in the middle of surgery even though they have given me 3 times the amount of anesthesia for someone my size...my chemistry is an anomaly. Maybe it isn't a matter of classification as anyone can get carried away with anything. The "ism" I speak of is a lack of moderation in most things I do. I know how to be a "1" or a "10"...my quest is to find that elusive "5" on a somewhat consistent basis. Not to say that 5 is mediocre. Maybe I would call it "balance" instead.
I DO think that most of the AA doctrine, as it has evolved over the last 50 years, IS very much like a cult. Hence, my split from the group a number of years ago. In my case, I felt that is was an "all or nothing" type of proposition and that the teachings were contradictory and judgmental once I started to stray from the consensus of my "group." Once I started voicing a differing opinion, cracks became more frequent and the judgments more harsh...so I left. End of story. My relationship with AA ended bitterly with my home group and I moved away. Did I go and get drunk because I stopped going to meetings 10 years ago....NO.
There is a "however" coming....right now I need to go raise some hell at an AA meeting to prove a point to Psy.
-
I dont understnd why the AA thing is even an issue. If an adult chooses to join a cult, club or crazy organisation and they claim it is working for them or they are getting something out of it then all power to them. If it is not,they can walk away at any time, even if it is a cult. This is entirely different to incarcerating a defenceless kid without trial, or sentencing a young person to a attend an institution like a boot camp that practices cruel and unusual punishment. One is a legitimate human rights issue the other is a lifestyle choice.
In your criteria of what constitutes the TTI, hopefully incomplete, you include:
- "incarcerating a defenceless kid without trial"
- "sentencing a young person to a attend an institution like a boot camp that practices cruel and unusual punishment"
Conspicuously absent from that list is any mention of what might approximate as the concept of "Mind Fuck."
Did you really mean to omit that?
Or do you truly believe that only physical coercion can qualify as torment, and that experiences of emotional or thought coercion (often referred to as "brainwashing") are merely "lifestyle choices?"
I think that most people have found that that last type of coercion has resulted in the greatest and longest lasting trauma post-program. I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but that is my impression and my personal experience.
Pretty much all of the programs in the TTI owe a partial debt either directly or indirectly to Alcoholics Anonymous for philosophy and/or methodology. That is why it tends to be rather reviled by some of the denizens around here.
uhh, in my programs there was nothing even somewhat comprable to AA. I had to attend those sort of meethings in addition to being in the program, and they were a HEAVENLY respite from program. I am not saying the A programs work, but it's false to say program's "methodology" is similar to an A program. It owes no more debt to them then to a public libraries.
-
What I meant is that if an adult chooses to join AA or scientology or whatever, then the "mind fuck" is to some extent consensual.
Consent is only consent if it's fully informed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent)
Brainwashing requires a person to be ignorant of precisely how he is being influenced. Margaret Singer's first condition of thought reform is:
"Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how attempts to psychologically condition him or her are directed in a step-by-step manner."
There is "bait and switch" with both Scientology and Alcoholics Anonymous (though arguably to different extents).
http://orange-papers.org/orange-bait-switch.html (http://orange-papers.org/orange-bait-switch.html)
Think about it. People don't' consciously choose to join cults. They're conned into it, manipulated, and outright lied to.
-
uhh, in my programs there was nothing even somewhat comprable to AA. I had to attend those sort of meethings in addition to being in the program, and they were a HEAVENLY respite from program.
Bet that made you want to go.
I am not saying the A programs work, but it's false to say program's "methodology" is similar to an A program. It owes no more debt to them then to a public libraries.
Need I remind you, Synanon was a direct outgrowth from AA. Sure most programs borrow from other sources, but AA is a big part of it. Where do you think the phrase "dead insane in jail" came from?
-
uhh, in my programs there was nothing even somewhat comprable to AA. I had to attend those sort of meethings in addition to being in the program, and they were a HEAVENLY respite from program. I am not saying the A programs work, but it's false to say program's "methodology" is similar to an A program. It owes no more debt to them then to a public libraries.
what were your programs?
-
I understand that you don't agree Psy, but the DMSIV classifies "alcoholism and addiction" as a disease.
Well. Two things to that. FIrst off, the DSM's concept of addiction/alcohol dependence is very, very, different from that of AA. Secondly, just because something is in a big book made by doctors doesn't mean that it's true. The fact that things are added and removed proves that they haven't all gotten it figured out yet. I don't pretend to have it all figured out either. I can, however, tell you that there are certain cases where the one line is longer than the other, when certain things are objectively, demonstratively, false.
Personally,I like to view it from my doc's perspective; he just says that I am not wired the same way as most people. Most drug affect me differently that others, I wake up in the middle of surgery even though they have given me 3 times the amount of anesthesia for someone my size...my chemistry is an anomaly. Maybe it isn't a matter of classification as anyone can get carried away with anything. The "ism" I speak of is a lack of moderation in most things I do. I know how to be a "1" or a "10"...my quest is to find that elusive "5" on a somewhat consistent basis. Not to say that 5 is mediocre. Maybe I would call it "balance" instead.
Ok. But is wired differently a disease? Is being obsessive a disease (ok... well maybe it can be, but it's certainly neither always lifelong or untreatable). Maybe there is an "ism" for that... I don't know. on wait, there is LOL!!!!
http://obsessivecompulsiveanonymous.org/ (http://obsessivecompulsiveanonymous.org/)
How much do you want to bet their members compulsively go to meetings... LOL. In any case, for the sake of argument, the problem with what you describe would seem to be OCD, and not alcoholism. For that reason, it's probably best for you to avoid alcohol, but it would be absurd to label alcohol as the root of the problem like AA does with it's "devil drink" mumbo jumbo.
I DO think that most of the AA doctrine, as it has evolved over the last 50 years, IS very much like a cult. Hence, my split from the group a number of years ago. In my case, I felt that is was an "all or nothing" type of proposition and that the teachings were contradictory and judgmental once I started to stray from the consensus of my "group." Once I started voicing a differing opinion, cracks became more frequent and the judgments more harsh...so I left. End of story. My relationship with AA ended bitterly with my home group and I moved away. Did I go and get drunk because I stopped going to meetings 10 years ago....NO.
There is a "however" coming....right now I need to go raise some hell at an AA meeting to prove a point to Psy.
LOLs
-
It owes no more debt to them then to a public libraries.
That's one hell of a vacant library in your town.
-
Consent is only consent if it's fully informed.
And in many cases when people discover that they are conned they leave. But trying to save adults from themselves is problematic. Sometimes the anti cult movement does this in a way that come being close to as forceful as those they are supposed to oppose. A fight over AA is also something of a red herring. Honestly who cares? An adult decides they are addicted to something. They go to the church hall. People are pretty black and white in their thinking & claim to be a member of the club you have to claim you will die. So according to this guy http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-secrets.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-secrets.html)
81% of people run for the hills after 1 meeting
90% stick around for 90 days and say thanks but no thanks
then 95 % go by the end of the year.
If the other 5% want to stay then really who gives a shit? Everyone else decided AA was not for them & a few people like it or believe its bullshit. Who cares what those people do? Unlike kids in the industry they are making a decision to drink the koolaide. They are either happy with the smug knowledge that they have all the answers while the rest of us apparently drink ourselves into an early grave or eventually they will leave. This is consensual. So why waste any energy on it?
-
uhh, in my programs there was nothing even somewhat comprable to AA. I had to attend those sort of meethings in addition to being in the program, and they were a HEAVENLY respite from program.
Bet that made you want to go.
I am not saying the A programs work, but it's false to say program's "methodology" is similar to an A program. It owes no more debt to them then to a public libraries.
Need I remind you, Synanon was a direct outgrowth from AA. Sure most programs borrow from other sources, but AA is a big part of it. Where do you think the phrase "dead insane in jail" came from?
Broccoli and human beings are almost identical genetically, but they are in no realistic sense "similar" except in the broad way that all things have some similarity. In terms of being cult-like or abusive, there is no comparison between A.A. and programs. That really trivializes and misrepresents programs. And, yes, the humane, non-evil, non-insane way I was treated at A made me want to go their instead of my programs, but the niceness of a doctor would have made me want to go for unnecessary surgery to escape my programs, so that doesn’t mean much.
I know C.D’s connection to A.A. but he was kicked out of A.A because he wanted to make A.A cult like, evil and abusive…which he did with Synanon. His methodology became more evil with the Punks program, an evil taken to a higher level with Cedu/ Straight. Equating these A and programs isn’t reasonable. That doesn’t mean I’m saying A.is helpful, or that it can’t be abusive in the way any “group therapy” style group can be abusive or coercive, (hell, any social group can be abusive) but A.A in itself is not a cult, or even cult-like, and certainly not program-like.
-
The forum will be open to the public shortly (probably on new years, if not earlier).
The hidden, secret forum members here are more cult like than any AA meeting I've seen.
-
Broccoli and human beings are almost identical genetically,
Idiot. NO. they are NOT. did you think that was a good opener?
In terms of being cult-like or abusive, there is no comparison between A.A. and programs.
bullshit. kidds start out with the all or nothing mentality in program from AA in program. they continue into adult and slip up. bang. bad consequences. worse than with no AA. read AARC posts.
the brain wash starts in program. and which bprograms were YOU in?
-
The forum will be open to the public shortly (probably on new years, if not earlier).
The hidden, secret forum members here are more cult like than any AA meeting I've seen.
moron. its in his sig if you ever bothered to visit fornits lately. where have YOU been?
-
Broccoli and human beings are almost identical genetically,
Idiot. NO. they are NOT. did you think that was a good opener?
In terms of being cult-like or abusive, there is no comparison between A.A. and programs.
bullshit. kidds start out with the all or nothing mentality in program from AA in program. they continue into adult and slip up. bang. bad consequences. worse than with no AA. read AARC posts.
the brain wash starts in program. and which bprograms were YOU in?
Hi. The rage that burns in your heart and deal with by using the internet to channel it onto strangers from your hiding place is aimed towards the guest that dared criticize the secret forum and thereby challenging your sense of self in some way, not me. Or perhaps you just call everyone an idiot? Speaking of idiots, none of what you said is accurate or literately written.
-
The forum will be open to the public shortly (probably on new years, if not earlier).
The hidden, secret forum members here are more cult like than any AA meeting I've seen.
moron. its in his sig if you ever bothered to visit fornits lately. where have YOU been?
I'm guessing the guest was inquiring about the secret forum, not the website. Why are you so rude?
-
Broccoli and human beings are almost identical genetically,
Idiot. NO. they are NOT. did you think that was a good opener?
In terms of being cult-like or abusive, there is no comparison between A.A. and programs.
bullshit. kidds start out with the all or nothing mentality in program from AA in program. they continue into adult and slip up. bang. bad consequences. worse than with no AA. read AARC posts.
the brain wash starts in program. and which bprograms were YOU in?
Hi. The rage that burns in your heart and you deal with by using the internet to channel it onto strangers from your hiding place is aimed towards the guest that dared criticize the secret forum and thereby challenged your sense of self in some way, not me. Or perhaps you just call everyone an idiot? Speaking of idiots, none of what you said is accurate or literately written.
Oops. Had to fix some typos. Lest they be fixed for me and the thread be derailed with the various additional corrections that the corrector needs. Cause that’s how it rolls here on fornits.
-
uhh, in my programs there was nothing even somewhat comprable to AA. I had to attend those sort of meethings in addition to being in the program, and they were a HEAVENLY respite from program.
Bet that made you want to go.
I am not saying the A programs work, but it's false to say program's "methodology" is similar to an A program. It owes no more debt to them then to a public libraries.
Need I remind you, Synanon was a direct outgrowth from AA. Sure most programs borrow from other sources, but AA is a big part of it. Where do you think the phrase "dead insane in jail" came from?
Broccoli and human beings are almost identical genetically, but they are in no realistic sense "similar" except in the broad way that all things have some similarity. In terms of being cult-like or abusive, there is no comparison between A.A. and programs. That really trivializes and misrepresents programs.
Um. Programs and AA are closer than brocolli to humans. "fake it til you make it"... etc. I see many Programs as simply a fundamentalist outcropping of AA.
And, yes, the humane, non-evil, non-insane way I was treated at A made me want to go their instead of my programs, but the niceness of a doctor would have made me want to go for unnecessary surgery to escape my programs, so that doesn’t mean much.
Sure they treat you nice as long as you're either a newcomer or agree with them. Things change, however, if you're around for a while and start to deviate from the official Big book, which AA members believe is inspired by god. AA members behave differently around newcomers.
I know C.D’s connection to A.A. but he was kicked out of A.A because he wanted to make A.A cult like, evil and abusive…which he did with Synanon.
No. he was booted out of AA because he wanted AA to cater to narcotics as well. This was before the days of NA and AA, at the time, was very exclusive towards acoholics only.
His methodology became more evil with the Punks program, an evil taken to a higher level with Cedu/ Straight. Equating these A and programs isn’t reasonable. That doesn’t mean I’m saying A.is helpful, or that it can’t be abusive in the way any “group therapy” style group can be abusive or coercive, (hell, any social group can be abusive) but A.A in itself is not a cult, or even cult-like, and certainly not program-like.
Well. AA is cult like. That conclusion is pretty well detailed in Charles Bufe's book "AA - Cult or Cure". And institutional AA can be a cult, as we all know.
He writes
Is Alcoholics Anonymous a cult? That's almost as difficult to answer as the question, "What is a cult?" The difficulty is compounded by the fact that AA has very close ties—indeed, incestuous relationships—with a large number of "related facilit[ies]" and "outside enterprise." These include the NCADD, ASAM, and the 93% of all inpatient alcoholism treatment facilities that utilize AA indoctrination as part—usually the centerpiece—of their programs, and that are for the most part staffed and controlled by 12-stepping "professionals." I believe that these front groups should be considered part of, or at least extensions of, AA, just as I believe that groups that are staffed and controlled by Communist Party members, and that advance Communist Party ideology, should be considered part of, or at least ex-tensions of, the Communist Party.
Both AA and the Communists learned long ago that the setting up of front groups is a convenient means of attracting or influencing the unwary, advancing their own agendas, and avoiding both criticism and responsibility (for the actions of their front groups). Here, I intend to hold AA responsible for the actions of its front groups. I will, however, at times maintain a distinction between what Vince Fox refers to as "communal AA" (free meetings and fellowship of the type described in Chapter 1) and what he refers to as "institutional AA" (the 12-step treatment industry). Where I make no distinction between the two, my remarks apply equally to both.
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chaptr10.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chaptr10.htm)
Ultimately AA does do more harm than good. At best it's success rate is identical to no treatment at all and at worst, it makes binge behavior far more likely.
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm)
It's a religion (supreme court has refused to challenge lower court decisions on this, making it the law of the land), and yet they take steps to influence government, judges, and police to gain court ordered members (see Hazelden's Little Red Book).
That is not the behavior of a legitimate religion.
Do I believe AA should be outlawed? Of course not. Anybody should be able to join any crazy quack cult or cult-like organization. What I do have a problem with, however, is both influencing the govermnent to gain forced treatment and the tendency of AA to decieve newcomers to get them to stay longer. To that end, I believe people should be educated. I believe if society did not see alcohol/drug use as a progressive disease inevitably resulting in death insanity or jail (AA's terms), program placement would be less likely, as parents would accurately see drug use as a stage, more caused by environmental and other factors than anything else.
-
AA has nothing to do with programs. Lumping AA/NA, Scientology and programs all into the same group does a disservice to those who wish to learn more about programs. It makes this site seem like a conspiracy theory website, run by kooks.
-
run by kooks.
:rofl: :rofl:
-
AA has nothing to do with programs. Lumping AA/NA, Scientology and programs all into the same group does a disservice to those who wish to learn more about programs. It makes this site seem like a conspiracy theory website, run by kooks.
You made more sense when you were discussing broccoli, Stalker.
-
G
AA has nothing to do with programs. Lumping AA/NA, Scientology and programs all into the same group does a disservice to those who wish to learn more about programs. It makes this site seem like a conspiracy theory website, run by kooks.
You made more sense when you were discussing broccoli, Stalker.
lol. I'm not the guest who posted that. How does stalking come into this? Please elaborate!
It seems pointless to talk about anything here, seeing how it degenerates, but broccoli and humans are genetically very similar. In fact, all life is. http://biocyc.org/comp-genomics (http://biocyc.org/comp-genomics)?
My point was that in a broad sense everything has similarities, but that doesn't make them "the same." In the meaningful sense of brainwashing, captivity, abuse, cultic relations the A* progams are NOT "the same" or "similar" to programs*. I agree with the poster that this comparison coming from the person who runs fornits does not reflect well on our credibility as a whole, and misleads people who have not been in programs about the nature of programs.
For anyone visiting: programs and AA/NA/OA have NO meaningful equitability in terms of brainwashing, torture, cultic methodology and relation.
When AA starts abducting people, holding them captive, charging huge amounts of $ for their “services” thereby making anyone who organizes a AA program a millionaire, brainwashing people in a cordinated effort from the top down, etc, etc then we can start making comparisons.
-
Problem is, AA is in virtually all programs' historical lineage, so your argument does not hold.
And they DO brainwash people from the top down.
-
I thoroughly resent the entire AA organization, they are all a bunch of low-lifes. I'll tell you why -- my dog developed a serious addiction to alcohol thanks to the jerk I let take care of him while I was away for a while. Turns out this idiot thought it would be a good idea to slip my pooch a mickey every night in his water bowl; makes me wonder what other sorts of shenanigans were going on with this guy and my poor dog. But that is beside the point! I took my dog down to the local AA meeting to try and get him some help, but they wouldn't hear it! These lousy morons kicked us both out of their stupid meeting without a word! Shit on AA and anyone involved with that dog-hating organization!
-
point was that in a broad sense everything has similarities, but that doesn't make them "the same."
I realize full well what you are trying to say. If you had read margaret singer you could have just said "fallacy of one similarity" in which she uses a similar argument.
In the meaningful sense of brainwashing, captivity, abuse, cultic relations the A* progams are NOT "the same" or "similar" to programs*.
And what if I were to consider Institutional AA and communal AA two parts of the same group? Ever researched how most current members got into the organization.
If they're not so similar, why is it that programs often utilize AA teachings, beliefs, language, and literature, making it clear to the program members that they will die if they don't go to meetings when they leave (many programs make sure to emphasize this to parents as well).
I agree with the poster that this comparison coming from the person who runs fornits does not reflect well on our credibility as a whole, and misleads people who have not been in programs about the nature of programs.
My views are my own and bear no reflection on the opinions of others on this forum. The fact you're talking to me at all about this is proof of that. If this was a place that had a central viewpoint, you would quickly be booted off.
For anyone visiting: programs and AA/NA/OA have NO meaningful equitability in terms of brainwashing, torture, cultic methodology and relation.
They are similar, but let me make it clear that programs add to AA. In other words, it's a lot more than just your standard 12 stepping fare.
When AA starts abducting people, holding them captive, charging huge amounts of $ for their “services” thereby making anyone who organizes a AA program a millionaire, brainwashing people in a cordinated effort from the top down, etc, etc then we can start making comparisons.
Also. Let me make it clear that I never said AA was a cult. It's a cult like organization. If you're not familiar with that term it means an organizatino with one or more cultic traits that does not fulfill enough of the requirements to gain the "cult" label (such as lack of a central leader that is still alive). That being said, there are clearly AA based cults, which make up the vast majority of programs.
Also, whether or not AA is a cult is besides the point. Even by their own studies it's useless at best and harmful at worst. That is beyond dispute.
In a sophisticated controlled study of A.A.'s effectiveness (Brandsma et. al.), court-mandated offenders who had been sent to Alcoholics Anonymous for several months were engaging in FIVE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got no treatment at all, and the A.A. group was doing NINE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got rational behavior therapy.
Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.
Also:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm)
also
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)
AA does deceive newcomers to get them to stay with theater of it's effectiveness (though this is justified with faking it to make it, among other reasons).
AA does bait and switch
AA does try to influence government, judges, members of the media, and police to get court ordered members (see Hazelden's Red Book).
AA does control communication of it's members.. a sponsor says whether a person is healthy or not
AA does make excessive demands for confession and reparation... confessions which are often trumped up for acceptance in the organization.
AA IS a religion. Courts have ruled this and the supreme court will not challenge those decisions, making it the law of the land.
AA does have it's set of loaded language. In addition to redefining terms such as "sobriety" (which comes to mean lifelong membership in AA), they use thought stopping cliches such as "stop your thinking thinking" and so on and so forth.
AA does make people deployable members of teh group for recruitment purposes (12th step).
AA does consider their scripture to be inspired by god (yes, they really do!).
AA purports to tell people they can take what they want and leave the rest while gradually "educating" people (creating learned powerlessness) that they will die if they stop going to meetings. You hear *A members say all the time "I stopped going to meetings... and I relapsed".
AA not have secret teachings per-se, but it is said that "more will be revealed" and it certainly is as time and the bait and switch progresses.
I could go on and on and on, but my point is that AA, as a whole, is toxic. It's not a legitimate treatment option of any sort. "cult" or not, it IS legally a religion that masquerades a treatment solution (only later to tell those who come that they can never be cured!)
Yes, not all AA meetings are the same and yes, there are some that are "more liberal" but by and large, the whole idea is based on the hallucinogenic-induced bullshit visions of a narcissistic quack (Bill Wilson) who saw himself as the messiah and claimed god inspired his writings (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot780.html). It's no surprise it doesn't work at all.
-
wasn't it "quit your stinking thinking"? and yeah, Bill was really into "altered states" of any kind, didn't matter if it was alcohol. could be atropine, could be religious fever.
-
I thoroughly resent the entire AA organization, they are all a bunch of low-lifes. I'll tell you why -- my dog developed a serious addiction to alcohol thanks to the jerk I let take care of him while I was away for a while. Turns out this idiot thought it would be a good idea to slip my pooch a mickey every night in his water bowl; makes me wonder what other sorts of shenanigans were going on with this guy and my poor dog. But that is beside the point! I took my dog down to the local AA meeting to try and get him some help, but they wouldn't hear it! These lousy morons kicked us both out of their stupid meeting without a word! Shit on AA and anyone involved with that dog-hating organization!
:rofl: :roflmao:
-
Problem is, AA is in virtually all programs' historical lineage, so your argument does not hold.
And they DO brainwash people from the top down.
Well, your historical biological lineage is (probably) helium and hydrogen. Are you, therefore, helium and hydrogen or (alternatively) pure energy?
How about Joenstown? Its historical lineage is Christianity. The historical lineage of Christianity is Judaism; the historical lineage of Judaism is Goddess oriented pantheism, and the historical lineage of that and all religions is an unknown worship-sort. So, are Christianity, Judaism and all religions, therefore, brainwashing, Jonestown-style suicide cults? They are according to your rationale.
You see where I am going with this. (In fact, the historical lineage of programs is not AA based. Their lineage is much more ancient.) The point is that all things have elements of the other and yet can be very different. To say AA brainwashes trivializes and misrepresents genuine brainwashing.
Advocating a viewpoint, even an incorrect one, isn’t brainwashing. Each week in church, en masse, people pledge that they love God, put no Gods before God, obey God’s word, chant, alter their breathing patterns and thereby their conscious state, and that isn’t brainwashing either. G.W.B and assorted thuggery stated, with much sturm und drang, that if “we” didn’t invade Iraq many of “us” would die. That isn’t brainwashing either.
This is a chart delineating the different forms of influence.
http://www.cultrecover.com/pdfs/CONTINUUM_INFLUENCE.pdf (http://www.cultrecover.com/pdfs/CONTINUUM_INFLUENCE.pdf)
I’d say that A.A. doesn’t even rank, though that’s debatable. It certainly doesn’t rise to cult level. Programs aren’t signified on this chart because this chart represents study of cults, not Gulag-Cults. Gulag-Cults’ brainwashing techniques go far beyond cults in their concentration and cruelty.
So, equating program and A.A. is baseless and misleading.
-
So, equating program and A.A. is baseless and misleading.
I didn't equate it at all.
Look. There was a time when I held your viewpoint that AA was not cult like. There was a time when I thought it was harmless, even beneficial. That changed after I researched more into AA's origins, it's effectiveness, and cults. I suggest you do the same. I don't have time to go around and around with you today on this.
If you read this book by Charles Bufe:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/ (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/)
This book by Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_0.jsp (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_0.jsp)
This book by Stanton Peele and Charles Bufe:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist/ (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist/)
Or Schaler's "Addiction is a choice" and still think AA is not a cult or cult like... well that's your informed decision, but I don't have time to educate you. Stanton Peele, Ph.D considers AA cult Like. So does Charles Bufe and Jeffery Schaler. I know ex-AA members who think AA is a cult or at least cult-like. It's my opinion, based on what you've said, that you're either a current AA follower, or had minimal contact with AA (it's a LOT different once you get into it). In either case, your opinion might change on further research.
-
Can AA treat an addiction to jerking off?
-
:twofinger: :twofinger: :twofinger:
Whiskey, gin and brandy
With a glass I'm pretty handy
I'm trying to walk a straight line
On sour mash and cheap wine
So join me for a drink boys
We're gonna make a big noise
So don't worry about tomorrow
Take it today
Forget about the tip
We'll get hell to pay
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Yeah
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
On me
Come on
Dizzy, drunk and fightin'
On tequila white lightnin'
My glass is getting shorter
On whiskey, ice and water
So come on and have a good time
And get blinded out of your mind
So don't worry about tomorrow
Take it today
Forget about the cheque
We'll get hell to pay
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
On me
Get stoned
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Yeah
Have a drink on me
Come on
Oooh
Gonna roll around
Gonna hit the ground
Take another swing
Have another drink
Gonna drink it dry
Gonna get me high
Come on all the boys
Make a noise
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink on me
Have a drink oooooooon me
-
Can AA treat an addiction to jerking off?
According to this pastor, Sexaholics Anonymous takes that issue quite seriuosly. He suggests sending such teenagers to Sexaholics anonymous (to get "cured" of course.. LOLOOLOLOLOL):
http://couragerc.net/PIPMasturbation.ht ... dolescents (http://couragerc.net/PIPMasturbation.html#Pastoral%20Counseling%20Of%20Adolescents)
Sexaholics anonymous apparantly does definately list it as a behaviour to abstain from (http://http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=31&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsaa-tools.com%2Fdocuments%2FIntroduction.doc&ei=WoleSeb4OKTEjAfJ8NDEDw&usg=AFQjCNEOzLKYSMlwrjjoCNGkOwHmo6ossA&sig2=r38iVyhLiCbgd5ZW483rfw)... LOL. This site lists Masturbation Anonymous (http://http://www.defeataddictions.org/AA-Unmasked.html) as a group of it's own.
LOL. and the mormons have their say, too: http://www.jwoodphd.com/Addictions/masturbation.htm (http://www.jwoodphd.com/Addictions/masturbation.htm)
(distrobuted by Bringham Young Univ.!)
Warning, Kids: Fapping is a progressive and incurable disease. Without our program of recovery, you will end up dead, insane, in jail, or on 4chan.
-
This sort of talk sounds a lot like program speak.
Look. There was a time when I held your viewpoint that AA was not cult like. There was a time when I thought it was harmless, even beneficial.
"I was just like you when I first arrived at the program".
That changed after I researched more into AA's origins, it's effectiveness, and cults. I suggest you do the same.
"I became enlightened when I adopted the views of my program, and you should do the same so we can all agree".
I don't have time to go around and around with you today on this.
"I'm annoyed by you since your views do not mirror the program's or my own".
We know psy has plenty of time to go around and around on this, since he starts so many topics on AA, making black and white claims and broad generalizations, essentially baiting anyone with a rational mind to speak up in defense of common sense.
If you read this book by Charles Bufe:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/ (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/)
This book by Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_0.jsp (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_0.jsp)
This book by Stanton Peele and Charles Bufe:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist/ (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist/)
"When you are in the program longer, you will understand. But don't question my knowledge and beliefs, because I know more than you."
Or Schaler's "Addiction is a choice" and still think AA is not a cult or cult like... well that's your informed decision, but I don't have time to educate you. Stanton Peele, Ph.D considers AA cult Like. So does Charles Bufe and Jeffery Schaler. I know ex-AA members who think AA is a cult or at least cult-like. It's my opinion, based on what you've said, that you're either a current AA follower, or had minimal contact with AA (it's a LOT different once you get into it). In either case, your opinion might change on further research.
"You must be a troubled kid. Only they would reject the teachings of the program."
-
You call me insensitive/absurd/insulting and you compare fornits to a program?
LOLOLOL
Right... And just for your information, I rarely discuss AA at all. This thread, and the other one giving AA book links are the only two I can recall at all. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to. All I was suggesting is you might want to read some books i've read and maybe you'll come to a similar conclusion. In program I that would be a demand, not a suggestion, with no "or you will DIE" conditions attached".
And just so you know...
"I was just like you when I first arrived at the program". = "I was just like you when I arrived at AA"
"I became enlightened when I adopted the views of my program, and you should do the same so we can all agree". also applies, almost word for word too.
"I'm annoyed by you since your views do not mirror the program's or my own". also applies. In AA they have special terms for those who do not apply the steps fully (such as "only abstaining" or "dry"). Newcomers are often warned to stay away from these people.
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.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, page 174.
"When you are in the program longer, you will understand. But don't question my knowledge and beliefs, because I know more than you." - you hear this in AA too. Its' usually "trust those who have more time. what have you got?" and so on and so forth. Social pressure shuts up dissenters.
"You must be a troubled kid. Only they would reject the teachings of the program." - also applies to AA.
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.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, page 174.
At least i'm being honest about my controversial views. AA's advice on that to newcomers would be:
"There is no use arousing any prejudice he may have against certain theological terms and conceptions about which he may already be confused. Don't raise such issues, no matter what your own convictions are.
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Working With Others, page 93. "
In other words: lie about what the program is about and don't mention that your concept of sobrity is:
"A special state of Grace gained by working the Steps and maintaining absolute abstinence. It is characterized by feelings of Serenity and Gratitude. It is a state of living according to God's will, not one's own." - "god inspired" spripture penned by Bill Wilson
Bait and switch... In other words, "sobriety" ain't about getting sober in AA. It's about conversion. If you're just sober, you get labeled as an apostate. A "dry drunk" or "merely abstaining".
-
Just want to say that last guest wasn't me: the person who brought up brocolli and says a is not a cult or even "cult-like." I am not a current a, follower.
-
Just want to say that last guest wasn't me: the person who brought up brocolli and says a is not a cult or even "cult-like." I am not a current a, follower.
Uh, that's "I'm not a current a. follower, nor have I ever "followed" a."
-
Psy: I'm saying your language and arrogant "I know more than you" attitude sounds program like. You know your right, and believe those who have different views are followers of AA or some how uneducated on the matter.
-
Psy: I'm saying your language and arrogant "I know more than you" attitude sounds program like. You know your right, and believe those who have different views are followers of AA or some how uneducated on the matter.
It might sound that way and that's a fair criticism. I fully admit I can sound arrogant at times. I'm not saying i'm right (though obviously I believe I am if i'm arguing a point). I am saying, however, that I feel strongly that I have a point and maybe if you took the time to read a few of those books you might change your mind (or the other guest might change his).
-
Psy: I'm saying your language and arrogant "I know more than you" attitude sounds program like. You know your right, and believe those who have different views are followers of AA or some how uneducated on the matter.
It might sound that way and that's a fair criticism. I fully admit I can sound arrogant at times. I'm not saying i'm right (though obviously I believe I am if i'm arguing a point). I am saying, however, that I feel strongly that I have a point and maybe if you took the time to read a few of those books you might change your mind (or the other guest might change his).
I am not an advocate for A.A's effectiveness, or greatness, or anything. The ritualized cultic-torture and murder of teens in Cedu, Desisto, Elan, Straight, etc is not similar to aa in any SIGNIFICANT way. Those organizations are genuinely cult-like.
My concern is that you’re saying AA is cult-like (like it or not) you are something of a mouthpiece for the anti-ritualized teen torture and murder movement. When you say “A is cult-like” and “programs are cult-like” you make it sound as if what does on in them is alike and give a dangerously wrong impression about the nature of programs and cults.
-
well, psy is hardly the only one around here who thinks that AA is a cult, and yeah, I'm calling it a flat out cult and not "cult-like." maybe YOU don't experience it that way, and that's fine and fair enough, and that's your gig.
-
I am not an advocate for A.A's effectiveness, or greatness, or anything. The ritualized cultic-torture and murder of teens in Cedu, Desisto, Elan, Straight, etc is not similar to aa in any SIGNIFICANT way.
I agree partially. There was a lot of stuff added onto AA... but for the most part the underlying belief systems (not to mention language and even literature) were compatible, based on AA's disease model. Is AA responsible for the actions of those who misuse (or use) their belief system? That's an interesting discussion there.
On one hand, any belief system can be exploited, such as Christianity is in Teen Challenge. Now since TC is part of the AOG church, as far as i'm concerned, that would make the AoG church cult-like (how many churches have forced conversion facilities... come on!). Is the whole of christianity responsible? No. But since TC is offically a part of the AoG church, the AoG church is responsible for it's actions.
On the other hand, does AA as an organized entity condemn those who misuse their belief system, or do they support and participate in it? On the one hand, AA members claim that AA should not be coerced, but on the other hand, Hazelden's little Red Book dictates their members should lobby for just that. Make no mistake... AA does have a leadership structure that does run treatment centers and they do profit from the free advertising of their deployable members. Many AA members, have been first introduced to AA through those coercive methods (being forced either by a job, by a judge, or by a school to attend AA, or an AA based treatment center). Think about it. Hazelden publishes a religious text advising their members to go out and spread their gospel, which they profit commercially from. Are all the AA members responsible, all AA groups? Depends, but they're definitely being used as free advertising. In that respect, AA/Hazelden can be held responsible for the actions of their group in all it's incarnations.
What i've been getting at, also is whether or not the belief system itself is toxic. I believe it is. I believe that the vast majority of program tactics are justified by and complimented by AA. The underlying philosophies of a "progressive incurable disease", "powerlessness" (no basis in science for either) and "deadinsaneinjail" come directly from AA. This means that, from the AA perspective, a person is going to die if they do not get "help" getting "sober" which doesn't mean what you think it means... In a parent's eyes, this gives all the justification needed to force treatment, and AA does not seem to frown on this at all. AARC in canada, refers parents to al-anon in addition to their meetings. It also refers former clients to communal AA. Those belief systems are complimentary. But think about this for a moment: Would an average church accept members who had been forceably converted to say, christianity? No. The average church would find such practices appalling and most likely come out vocally against them (this would vary, of course, between churches). AA, on the other hand, at the very least condones the practice and far more common either officially or unofficially endorses the practice... both for kids, and actively lobbying for forced placement for adults (See Hazelden's little Red Book). That sort of mindset ("helping" people against their will because they "cannot" help themselves) goes to the very core of what makes a program a program.
Those organizations are genuinely cult-like.
Nah. Those organizations weren't just cult-like. They were cults. Big difference there.
My concern is that you’re saying AA is cult-like (like it or not) you are something of a mouthpiece for the anti-ritualized teen torture and murder movement.
I'm a mouthpiece for my own viewpoint. I speak for myself and myself alone. So does everybody else here. If others choose to see me as some sort of representative, they'd be wrong.
When you say “A is cult-like” and “programs are cult-like” you make it sound as if what does on in them is alike and give a dangerously wrong impression about the nature of programs and cults.
I understand that concern. I realize full well what I say sounds like. But what If i'm right? Should I be forbidden to speak an opinion simply because it is unpopular or not widely accepted? As I said, read the books I suggested and maybe you'll come to the same conclusions I have.
-
well, psy is hardly the only one around here who thinks that AA is a cult, and yeah, I'm calling it a flat out cult and not "cult-like." maybe YOU don't experience it that way, and that's fine and fair enough, and that's your gig.
Well. The charismatic leader is technically dead. Hence "cult-like". It's a few technicalities short of a full blown cult (Maybe not as bad as a lot of cults, certainly not as bad as most programs, but a cult nevertheless)
-
Isn't it better for the collective cult and prospective members that the ' Cult Leader ' is dead ?
Doesn't it provide more purpose and motivation?
This occured to me when reading up on North Korea. The highest position is "Eternal President of the Republic"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Pr ... e_Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_President_of_the_Republic)
This allows the #2 man to implement absurd policies and orders and 'blame' it on the almighty supreme beings' "'wishes" for the nation.
-
Warning, Kids: Fapping is a progressive and incurable disease. Without our program of recovery, you will end up dead, insane, in jail, or on 4chan.
:roflmao: :sue: :cheers:
-
I may well and fairly be called a misanthropic troglodyte, even an irredeemable reprobate by some, but I'm not so much concerned about the personal impact on the individuals who choose (or not) to receive Stepcraft indoctrination. I'm more concerned about that deployable agent thing.
Look, the entire premis for the global, decades long and no sign of letting up War on certain unpatentable drugs not sold by Glaxo Welcome rests on the powerlessness doctrine; i.e. that the substances have power over the volition of the user, therefore we the folk cannot be trusted to have free access to them. This idea has become so broadly accepted in our society that it truly is frightening. I have personally witnessed and seen numerous documented instances where law enforcement will turn a blind eye to reports of the violent abduction of a child or denial of access by legal custodians or even several witnesses swearing to the same set of abuses. The blinder goes like this:
Please understand that addiction has affected far too many families and we as a society must explore a variety of methods to overcome this scourge. That said, I would never advocate harming someone in order to save them. I am not aware of such being the case at Pathway. Should your allegations be substantiated I of course would have to rethink my position.
The same justificatin has resulted in things like random roadside 'safety' checkpoints, forced TC treatment for minor drug law violations and a long list of other bone headed public policy.
The trouble is, they will torment us without end cause the do so with the leave of their own concience. That will remain true so long as few of us question the justification for these policies. That's why it's worth discussing.
And it's worth reading up on, too. But don't ever assume that someone will come to agree with you because they've read the same thing. More likely, they'll have a slightly different take on the material as well as some counter argument and hopefully citation to support their view. This is what's called beating the issues around like red headed step children and see what's left standing at the end.
-
I may well and fairly be called a misanthropic troglodyte, even an irredeemable reprobate by some, but I'm not so much concerned about the personal impact on the individuals who choose (or not) to receive Stepcraft indoctrination. I'm more concerned about that deployable agent thing.
Look, the entire premis for the global, decades long and no sign of letting up War on certain unpatentable drugs not sold by Glaxo Welcome rests on the powerlessness doctrine; i.e. that the substances have power over the volition of the user, therefore we the folk cannot be trusted to have free access to them. This idea has become so broadly accepted in our society that it truly is frightening. I have personally witnessed and seen numerous documented instances where law enforcement will turn a blind eye to reports of the violent abduction of a child or denial of access by legal custodians or even several witnesses swearing to the same set of abuses. The blinder goes like this:
Please understand that addiction has affected far too many families and we as a society must explore a variety of methods to overcome this scourge. That said, I would never advocate harming someone in order to save them. I am not aware of such being the case at Pathway. Should your allegations be substantiated I of course would have to rethink my position.
The same justificatin has resulted in things like random roadside 'safety' checkpoints, forced TC treatment for minor drug law violations and a long list of other bone headed public policy.
The trouble is, they will torment us without end cause the do so with the leave of their own concience. That will remain true so long as few of us question the justification for these policies. That's why it's worth discussing.
And it's worth reading up on, too. But don't ever assume that someone will come to agree with you because they've read the same thing. More likely, they'll have a slightly different take on the material as well as some counter argument and hopefully citation to support their view. This is what's called beating the issues around like red headed step children and see what's left standing at the end.
The citation/counter citation circle is why I don't bother linking to the countless studies evidencing addiction or the effectiveness of A.A. when this comes up.Not that my view is important, but my feeling is you are not powerless over substances and can use, even "abuse" drugs a lot and not be addicted, and you can also be addicted. Similarly, you can feel a lot of sadness and not be depressed or be very nervous and shy and not have PTSD. You can diet and not have an eating disorder. Addiction is a rare end of a usage continuim. Its a mental illness induced by excessive usage and environment. Its existance should never be used as an excuse to imprison without due process especially to imprison and abuse babies. It should never be used as an excues to torture. I really can't understand, beleive that that is allowed to go on...
-
It seems pointless to talk about anything here, seeing how it degenerates, but broccoli and humans are genetically very similar. In fact, all life is. http://biocyc.org/comp-genomics (http://biocyc.org/comp-genomics)?
LOLOLOLOL... You cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously with that kind of an analogy. Gimmee a break! And the link to a genome database? What exactly is that supposed to prove? Do you even know what a genome is and what a sequence analysis entails? If I ran one right now, I would disprove your alleged point to your utter and excruciating humiliation. NO. Broccoli and humans are NOT genetically similar. Not at all.
Well, your historical biological lineage is (probably) helium and hydrogen. Are you, therefore, helium and hydrogen or (alternatively) pure energy?
PLEASE. Someone needs to go back and redo their high school chemistry class. Helium is a GAS (atomic number=2). Or...perhaps you were just trying to warn us that the rest of your post was nothing but HOT AIR? About the only time that a human being has helium in them, is when some bozo inhales some at a balloon party so that he can talk like Mickey Mouse.
(Btw, do you actually try to use these lines to pick up chicks? ...cuz, Maaan, the cut-off IQ must be about 82...)
-
It seems pointless to talk about anything here, seeing how it degenerates, but broccoli and humans are genetically very similar. In fact, all life is. http://biocyc.org/comp-genomics (http://biocyc.org/comp-genomics)?
LOLOLOLOL... You cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously with that kind of an analogy. Gimmee a break! And the link to a genome database? What exactly is that supposed to prove? Do you even know what a genome is and what a sequence analysis entails? If I ran one right now, I would disprove your alleged point to your utter and excruciating humiliation. NO. Broccoli and humans are NOT genetically similar. Not at all.
Well, your historical biological lineage is (probably) helium and hydrogen. Are you, therefore, helium and hydrogen or (alternatively) pure energy?
PLEASE. Someone needs to go back and redo their high school chemistry class. Helium is a GAS (atomic number=2). Or...perhaps you were just trying to warn us that the rest of your post was nothing but HOT AIR? About the only time that a human being has helium in them, is when some bozo inhales some at a balloon party so that he can talk like Mickey Mouse.
(Btw, do you actually try to use these lines to pick up chicks? ...cuz, Maaan, the cut-off IQ must be about 82...)
I don’t “need to retake” my “high-school chem. class” or any HS class. I never took them whatsoever because I was busy being tortured. I’m getting my Uni. Ed, though. My understanding of bio-chem lies there and in reading. It’s basic but enough for basic points concerning whether A.A and Programs are cults that “brainwash” consensual participants or captives. I don’t use ideas about hydrogen “to pick up chicks.” Do you? You’re rude and angry and gutturally inane, senselessly. It’s unbecoming. I don't get “humiliated” by internet exchanges, but as humiliation is a concern for you, re-read your post and consider the impression you impart.
When I said, “our historical-biological lineage is hydrogen and helium” I responded to the idea that if there is historical lineage between program and A.A then programs are the same as AA. Our historical biological-lineage is hydrogen and helium or pure energy as we evolved from it, apparently. http://www.arm.ac.uk/~csj/essays/lmartin/evgalaxy.htm (http://www.arm.ac.uk/~csj/essays/lmartin/evgalaxy.htm) My point was that lineage through something doesn’t make it “the same.”
When I said broccoli and humanity are genetically alike and yet we are quite different, I responded to the idea that if there are similar aspects of AA and program they are both cults that “brainwash.” Everything is very similar molecularly, or atomically. Life has a greater, much more striking degree of similarity. Genetically, broccoli & humanity are strikingly alike in a way that humanity and non-life is not. “While the DNA of almost all organisms is distinct in its fine detail, the overall structure of the DNA found in every living organism is the same”
If you don’t like the link in the last post, these elaborate on how similar all life is genetically. "We share 60% of our DNA with a banana."
http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/ ... =6&tv=true (http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/defiant_modernism/01.ST.02/?scene=6&tv=true) All life being similar genetically is hardly controversial . How similar you want to say broccoli is to a human depends on how you want to define “similar,” which is kinda my point. More exactly, my point is that finding a “similarity” even striking similarite(s) does not make things “the same” in a relevant sense.
I think I’ve repeated and explained this enough.
-
Ok so now we're debating the scientific merits of a bad analogy rather than the issues themselves. Bravo!
Look, the entire premis for the global, decades long and no sign of letting up War on certain unpatentable drugs not sold by Glaxo Welcome rests on the powerlessness doctrine; i.e. that the substances have power over the volition of the user, therefore we the folk cannot be trusted to have free access to them.
That's the core of the issue there. Thank you Antigen. The powerlessness doctrine and the disease concept both have little or no basis in either science or common sense. If it were truly possible to scientifically prove that people were powerless over substances, that evidence could be used in court to get people aquitted of crimes they commit while under the influence. It's not possible, however, and thus people still are held accontable by the law for their actions. If it were up to the stepcraft folks, on the other hand, they would be simply be sent for "treatment" for a "disease" they invented. This is already happening in many states which require court ordered AA or institutional AA placement. Even though high courts have ruled this practice unconstitutional, and the supreme court has refused to challenge those decisions (making it the law of the land), if a person doesn't have a good attorney, it won't matter. As a result, a bona-fide religion (term used loosely) continues to get members through the courts for consensual and victimless crimes. Jefferson would be shitting bricks and calling for revolution were he alive today. Is AA directly responsible for this? Yes. Hazelden's little red book commands AA members to seek out judges, police, and others in power to encourage coerced AA placement.
Basically this means the 12 steppers want two things: to restrict your freedom as to what you can and can not put in your body, and to force you into "treatment" (which amounts to little more than religious indoctrination into a cult-like religion) for violating their moral commandments regarding substances. Something is very very wrong when people are not held accountable for their actions, and instead punished for what's in their bodies, regardless of whether the "crime" is consensual and victimless or not.
-
Getting back to the OP....
One of the on-topic links that wdtony provided in one of the first few posts in this thread was to a copy of a New York Times summary of a recent repeat of Solomn Asch's 1950's experiment on social conformity. The new experiment used f-MRI scans to pinpoint which parts of the brain were most active during actions of conformity and during assertion of an independent viewpoint.
Here is the article from its original source. I have taken the liberty of inserting the card graphic from Wikipedia's entry on Asch (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments), but the other graphics are from the Times.
—•?|•?•0•?•|?•— —•?|•?•0•?•|?•— —•?|•?•0•?•|?•—
The New York Times
What Other People Say May Change What You See (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/science/28brai.html)
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE
Published: June 28, 2005
A new study uses advanced brain-scanning technology to cast light on a topic that psychologists have puzzled over for more than half a century: social conformity.
The study was based on a famous series of laboratory experiments from the 1950's by a social psychologist, Dr. Solomon Asch.
(http://http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/06/27/science/28brain.1.184.jpg)
The study was based on 1950's work by the psychologist Solomon Asch, above.
In those early studies, the subjects were shown two cards. On the first was a vertical line. On the second were three lines, one of them the same length as that on the first card.
(http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Asch_experiment.png/270px-Asch_experiment.png)
One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.
Then the subjects were asked to say which two lines were alike, something that most 5-year-olds could answer correctly.
But Dr. Asch added a twist. Seven other people, in cahoots with the researchers, also examined the lines and gave their answers before the subjects did. And sometimes these confederates intentionally gave the wrong answer.
Dr. Asch was astonished at what happened next. After thinking hard, three out of four subjects agreed with the incorrect answers given by the confederates at least once. And one in four conformed 50 percent of the time.
Dr. Asch, who died in 1996, always wondered about the findings. Did the people who gave in to group do so knowing that their answers was wrong? Or did the social pressure actually change their perceptions?
The new study tried to find an answer by using functional M.R.I. scanners that can peer into the working brain, a technology not available to Dr. Asch.
The researchers found that social conformity showed up in the brain as activity in regions that are entirely devoted to perception. But independence of judgment - standing up for one's beliefs - showed up as activity in brain areas involved in emotion, the study found, suggesting that there is a cost for going against the group.
"We like to think that seeing is believing," said Dr. Gregory Berns, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist at Emory University in Atlanta who led the study.
But the study's findings, he said, show that seeing is believing what the group tells you to believe.
The research was published June 22 in the online edition of Biological Psychiatry.
"It's a very important piece of work," said Dr. Dan Ariely, a professor of management and decision making at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the study. "It suggests that information from other people may color our perception at a very deep level."
Dr. Brian Knutson, a neuroscientist at Stanford and an expert on perception, called the study "extremely clever."
"It had all the right controls and is a new contribution, the first to look at social conformity inside a brain magnet," he said.
Functional M.R.I. scanners detect which brain regions are active when people carry out various mental tasks.
The new study involved 32 volunteers who agreed to participate in a study on perception. "We told them others will be doing the same task, but you're the only one who will be in the scanner," Dr. Berns said.
The subjects were asked to mentally rotate images of three-dimensional objects to determine if the objects were the same or different.
(http://http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/06/28/science/28brain.2.184.jpg)
In the new study, subjects were asked to decide if geometric shapes were the same or different. graphic: Dr. Gregory S. Berns
In the waiting room, the subjects met four people who they thought were other volunteers, but who in fact were actors, ready to fake their responses.
To encourage cohesiveness in the group, the participant and the four actors played practice rounds on laptop computers, took pictures of one another and chatted.
Then the participant went into the M.R.I. machine. The participant was told that the others would look at the objects first as a group and then decide if they were same or different.
As planned, the actors gave unanimously wrong answers in some instances and unanimously correct answers in others.
Mixed answers were sometimes thrown in to make the test more believable but they were not included in the analysis.
Next, the participant was shown the answer given by the others and asked to judge the objects.
Were they the same or different?
The brain scanner captured a picture of the judgment process.
In some trials, instead of being told that the other volunteers had given an answer, they were told that a computer had made the decision. Dr. Berns said this was done to make sure it was social pressure that was having an effect.
As in Dr. Asch's experiments, many of the subjects caved in to group pressure. On average, Dr. Berns said, they went along with the group on wrong answers 41 percent of the time.
The researchers had two hypotheses about what was happening. If social conformity was a result of conscious decision making, they reasoned, they should see changes in areas of the forebrain that deal with monitoring conflicts, planning and other higher-order mental activities.
But if the subjects' social conformity stemmed from changes in perception, there should be changes in posterior brain areas dedicated to vision and spatial perception.
In fact, the researchers found that when people went along with the group on wrong answers, activity increased in the right intraparietal sulcus, an area devoted to spatial awareness, Dr. Berns said.
There was no activity in brain areas that make conscious decisions, the researchers found. But the people who made independent judgments that went against the group showed activation in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus - regions associated with emotional salience.
The implications of the study's findings are huge, Dr. Berns said.
In many areas of society - elections, for example, or jury trials - the accepted way to resolve conflicts between an individual and a group is to invoke the "rule of the majority." There is a sound reason for this: A majority represents the collective wisdom of many people, rather than the judgment of a single person.
But the superiority of the group can disappear when the group exerts pressure on individuals, Dr. Berns said.
The unpleasantness of standing alone can make a majority opinion seem more appealing than sticking to one's own beliefs.
If other people's views can actually affect how someone perceives the external world, then truth itself is called into question.
There is no way out of this problem, Dr. Ariely said.
But if people are made aware of their vulnerability, they may be able to avoid conforming to social pressure when it is not in their self-interest.
# # #
-
Hazelden's little red book commands AA members to seek out judges, police, and others in power to encourage coerced AA placement.
DAMN, that is fucked up.... A little more about this, please, when you have the time (maybe a link or two, or just some more info.)
-
Is there somewhere we can download this "little red book"? I'm curious now.. and I rarely get to intrigued about AA topics or reading material.
-
Who cares. If you don't like AA, then don't go. The only people "coerced" to go, are people that got DUI's, and they should consider themselves lucky they didn't get jail. Would you rather sit in the back of a few meetings, or rot in jail? I know which one I'd choose. This whole anti-AA agenda is much to do about nothing, makes you look crazy.
-
I'd probably choose not to drive wasted myself.
Just throwin' that out there...
-
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cul ... recruiting (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a2.html#ca_aggressive_recruiting)
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-sentenced.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-sentenced.html)
"Jail or AA" i a false dichotomy (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). The simple fact of the matter is that state referrals to a religious organization is a violation of the establishment clause. At the same time, most who are referred to AA have no idea that it is a religious organization (not spritual) (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html#judges) at the time they "choose" IF they choose, which is not always the case (judges often sentence to AA with no other option).
So... say a judge orders you to 90 meetings in 90 days (and it does not always have to be an "or jail" situation)... You really don't think that will have an affect on a person, when they're bombarded from every angle by the perception that AA works (which is a lie). Take the whole "fake it til you make it" thing. You think that's to help people "make it"? No. It's theatre for the newcomers (surely you noticed something similar in program). Just like was demonstrated in the example in the OP, other people's perceptions DO influence your perceptions. It doesn't make those perceptions accurate, however, since there IS objective truth of many things. The objective truth of the matter is that AA religious, uses cult-like tactics, and DOES NOT WORK. In fact, in one study, it caused binging to increase five fold over no treatment at all.
I am against ANY coerced treatment at all, whether it be for kids in program, or for court offenders sent to AA. I could give a fuck if people truly choose to go to AA (though I believe they should be educated), but forcing anybody into anything that can modify the way they think? That's re-education. Judges do not always give people an option anyway, and I know this for a fact, having known people sentenced to AA.
In addition, the greater, long term effect of this practice has been to build up the popularity of a religion (NOT treatment, and NOT based on science), that has incluenced government, the mecical community and the justice system with its religious, "god inspired" beliefs. As Antigen noted, the whole drug war rests on AA's "progressive disease" concept and their "powerlessness concept", both of which are demonstratively objectively false. To those who might counter that "alcoholism" is in the DSM as a disease, I might remind them both that the DSM''s concept of alcholism as a disease is VERY different than that of aa (it's curable, for one) and also that homosexuality was once listed in the DSM as a "disease". The DSM is not infallible. The fact that it changes; the fact that things are added and removed, proves that.
-
I've never sat through an AA meeting so I don't really know what it is like. But I will agree.. If I had a choice.. X number of days in Jail or X number of days of AA I'd pick AA for the obvious reason of not wanting to miss any good drinking time or work for that matter. However, the bigger concern for me isn't for those people who can walk away after the meeting. It would be those people inside jail being made to attend AA. Now that's gotta be rough. Every walking minute more or less controlled.. and then being taken to some freakshow of a cultist meeting to come clean about all your boozing.
It is pretty clear though that AA is a bit of a joke and the potential spring board for half of the cults existing in the USA. Charles Deiderich was an ex-AA member who got kicked out if I remember? What happened to him? Synonan anyone?
-
Charles Deiderich was an ex-AA member who got kicked out if I remember? What happened to him? Synonan anyone?
He was kicked out because he wanted AA to cator to narcotics users as well. AA, at the time, was opposed to the idea. So he started his own meetings, which eventually progressed into Synanon.
-
:jawdrop: here I thought he was just a fruitcake. Turns out he is a rabid foaming at the mouth rattle snake handling AA fruitcake.
-
Who cares. If you don't like AA, then don't go. The only people "coerced" to go, are people that got DUI's, and they should consider themselves lucky they didn't get jail. Would you rather sit in the back of a few meetings, or rot in jail? I know which one I'd choose. This whole anti-AA agenda is much to do about nothing, makes you look crazy.
I agree.
Psy, you are frustrating.
What you are saying is completely wacky. That’s fine, but the problem is you are a “representative” voicing the reality abduction, torture, brainwashing and murder for profit in America Gulags like Desisto, Elan, CEDU Running Springs, Kids helping Kids, etc.
You have created a situation where people either have to write off the info about cults, brainwashing, and Cultic-Gulags that you provide as unreliable, or accept that “brainwashing” equates to ethical, non-abusive, consensual, partly scientifically validated interaction.
Because of this, when you say that prisoners who support wwasp are “brainwashed” people know that your idea of “brainwashing” is ethical, non-abusive, consensual scientifically validated interaction. Therefore, they’ll have to agree with the trolls who claim that “brainwashing” as defined on fornits(or at least by you) does not match with a sensible definition of brainwashing , or that “brainwashing” is something other than what it is: the Lifton based notions of brainwashing, i.e. cultic, and gulag (Chinese Falun Gong http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles ... 95696.html (http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2008/3/25/95696.html)) brainwashing.
Also, the majority of the info you give about A.A. is incorrect which is shown with simple google searches. You don’t like the broccoli/human analogy, but really you might as well be saying that broccoli walks and talks because its overall genetic structure matches the homosapein’s when you say that A.A. brainwashes because of one irrelevant “similarity” to a cult or another. You focus on trivial similarities, ignore the important differences, and twist things to create similarities. Also, a simple google search will validate that there are many, many scientific studies that are considered evidence of addiction, and the current scientific understanding is that addiction is very real. Addiction has hardly been “disproved;” it’s not even really scientifically controversial. Argh. Stop the insanity!
-
I agree.
Psy, you are frustrating.
What you are saying is completely wacky. That’s fine, but the problem is you are a “representative” voicing the reality abduction, torture, brainwashing and murder for profit in America Gulags like Desisto, Elan, CEDU Running Springs, Kids helping Kids, etc.
As I said earlier, I AM NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF ANYBODY BUT MYSELF. IF you're trying to somehow shame me into never mentioning the cult like aspects of AA or in any way say what I can or can not say you can stop trying now and go fuck yourself instead. It would be more productive.
You have created a situation where people either have to write off the info about cults, brainwashing, and Cultic-Gulags that you provide as unreliable, or accept that “brainwashing” equates to ethical, non-abusive, consensual, partly scientifically validated interaction.
Margaret singer writes in her book "cults in our midst" that in most cults people can technically leave at any time and that most cults do NOT employ physical coercion. She writes that more often than not, such techinques are counterproductive. The fact that AA is (sometimes) consensual at first (but based on deception) does not mean someplace is a cult one way or the other. Also, as I noted in my previous post above, a large portion of AA's members were coerced there at first.
Because of this, when you say that prisoners who support wwasp are “brainwashed” people know that your idea of “brainwashing” is ethical, non-abusive, consensual scientifically validated interaction. Therefore, they’ll have to agree with the trolls who claim that “brainwashing” as defined on fornits(or at least by you) does not match with a sensible definition of brainwashing , or that “brainwashing” is something other than what it is: the Lifton based notions of brainwashing, i.e. cultic, and gulag (Chinese Falun Gong http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles ... 95696.html (http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2008/3/25/95696.html)) brainwashing.
I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others. I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions. I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.
Also, the majority of the info you give about A.A. is incorrect which is shown with simple google searches.
Oh really? MENTION ONE!
You don’t like the broccoli/human analogy, but really you might as well be saying that broccoli walks and talks because its overall genetic structure matches the homosapein’s when you say that A.A. brainwashes because of one irrelevant “similarity” to a cult or another. You focus on trivial similarities, ignore the important differences
Such as? I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede. You claim you have studied cults... let me test that if you challenge me. I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head. Let's see if you can name it.
and twist things to create similarities.
OK. I see you saying that AA has important differences between It and other cults. I ACCEPT THAT. I said AA was CULT LIKE... NOT A CULT. AA, for example, does not have a living charismatic leader (technically, neither does Scientology, since LRH is dead, but that doesn't mean Scientology isn't cult like, or even a full blown cult). there ARE important differences. Never did I say anywhere that AA in any way equates to the kind of coercion or brainwashing that goes on in most programs.
Also, a simple google search will validate that there are many, many scientific studies that are considered evidence of addiction, and the current scientific understanding is that addiction is very real. Addiction has hardly been “disproved;” it’s not even really scientifically controversial. Argh. Stop the insanity!
I never said addiction did not exist. Are you TheWho? Do not put words in my mouth. I said addiction was not a disease, especially in the way AA defines it (progressive, incurable).
If you have studies, besides the monkey one which i've already noted the problems with, post em here. Put up or shut the fuck up.
Are you an AA member? Have you ever been to AA meetings? How long did you go?
-
Is there somewhere we can download this "little red book"? I'm curious now.. and I rarely get to intrigued about AA topics or reading material.
The "little red book" is rarely used anymore, except at Hazelden, since they market the book. The most common texts are still the Big Book and the 24 hours a day - Daily Meditation book.
It is not worth the trouble reading it. I have one around here somewhere if you feel an overwhelming need to become informed Che..lmk.
-
Well.. unless you want to ship it to China.... I'm sure it would fit in just fine with the millions of copies of Mao's little red book.
-
Well.. unless you want to ship it to China.... I'm sure it would fit in just fine with the millions of copies of Mao's little red book.
I was waiting for someone to compare it to Mao lil red book....LMAO!!
-
Well they are both little, and I dare say they are both quite red. Not sure how they compare content wise though. Haven't red either.
-
I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others. I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions. I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.
I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede. You claim you have studied cults... let me test that if you challenge me. I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head. Let's see if you can name it.
I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..
Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, that take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. Upon study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.
Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page you quote for evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.
Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4 (http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4)
“As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”
And
“[RickRoss forum]is a "Cult Education Forum" for those interested in discussing groups called "cults," "cult-like" groups and the manipulative techniques they may employ. AA doesn't fit within that spectrum.”
Meanwhile, he considers “teen boot camps” and related orgs like Straight, Desisto, Synanon, WWASP cultic organizations
Here is what he says to the internet guy, Agent Orange, and about L rangels, who, you quote or refer to as evidence of your position:
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=34 (http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=34)
‘’Please understand vince that Margaret Singer would not agree with your application of her work concerning AA. Dr. Singer did not consider AA a "cult" and never opined otherwise, nor did she apply thought reform techniques to AA.
Robert Jay Lifton, the author of "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" likewise has not stated that AA uses thought reform, that I am aware of.
So you may offer your opinions, but they have no basis agreed upon by the authors you quote.
You offered a link to L. Allen Ragels paper "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult?"
Ragels like others quoted by anti-AA critics on the Internet, is not a recognized cult expert and has no meaningful standing in that area of study.””
In the opinion of notable EVERY cultic expert I could find, A.A. does NOT practice thought reform, nor is it “cult-like” or a cult. Margeret Singer, author of the most concurrent, contemparary thought-reform study,who DESIGNED the parameters you say show A.A. is cult-like, holds that A.A. is NOT cult-like.
I do not “follow” A.A. My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.
A.A's a group. You could fairly consider it religious-like, or philosophy-like (as opposed to scientific) but not cult-like. I know some,not experts, say A.A. fails the “cult test” or has enough of S’s aspects to be a cult. If I wanted, I could make the v.a. guides apply to basically any group: republicans, Catholics... You need to use the paradigm in a reasonable way for it to be useful. A.O, L rangels, etc, and you don't do so.
-
I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others. I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions. I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.
I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede. You claim you have studied cults... let me test that if you challenge me. I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head. Let's see if you can name it.
I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..
Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, who take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. After study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.
Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page that provides that evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.
Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4 (http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4)
“"""As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”"""""
And
"[RickRoss forum]is a "Cult Education Forum" for those interested in discussing groups called "cults," "cult-like" groups and the manipulative techniques they may employ.. AA doesn't fit within that [the cult or cult-like] spectrum."
Meanwhile, he considers “teen boot camps” and related orgs like Straight, Desisto, Synanon, WWASP cultic organizations
Here is what he says to the internet guy, Agent Orange, and about L rangels, who, you quote or refer to as evidence of your position:
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=34 (http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=34)
’Please understand vince that Margaret Singer would not agree with your application of her work concerning AA. Dr. Singer did not consider AA a "cult" and never opined otherwise, nor did she apply thought reform techniques to AA.
Robert Jay Lifton, the author of "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" likewise has not stated that AA uses thought reform, that I am aware of.
So you may offer your opinions, but they have no basis agreed upon by the authors you quote.
You offered a link to L. Allen Ragels paper "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult?"
Ragels like others quoted by anti-AA critics on the Internet, is not a recognized cult expert and has no meaningful standing in that area of study.
In the opinion of EVERY notable cultic expert, A.A. does NOT practice thought reform, nor is it “cult-like” or a cult. Margeret Singer, author of the most current, accepted thought-reform study & criteria,who DESIGNED the criteria you say show A.A. is cult-like, holds A.A. is NOT cult-like.
I do not “follow” A.A. My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.
A.A's a group. You could fairly consider it religious-like, or philosophy-like (as opposed to scientific) but not cult-like. I know some,not experts, say A.A. fails the “cult test” or has enough of S’s aspects to be a cult. If I wanted, I could make the v.a. guides apply to basically any group: republicans, Catholics... You need to use the paradigm in a reasonable way for it to be useful. A.O, L rangels, etc, and you don't.
-
double post. oops. also, the first time, my words got changed around...so weird
-
I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others. I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions. I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.
I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede. You claim you have studied cults... let me test that if you challenge me. I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head. Let's see if you can name it.
I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..
Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, that take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. Upon study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.
First. Margaret singer did NOT say that AA was not cult-like. She said that it was not a cult. I agree with her on that. The reasons she cited on page 97 of Cults in our midst are "AA does not recruit deceptively, AA does not hide what membership wil eventually entail, and members can leave at any point. AA focuses on helping people grow instead of tearing them down". She did NOT say they do not practice thought reform and she did NOT say that the organization was not cult-like. That being said, I think she was at least partially incorrect about the organization in a few ways.
IT's important to note that as I've cited earlier in this thread, AA does recruit deceptively and hide what membership will eventually entail. In that regard, i'm sorry to say that, despite her knowledge and wisdom, Margaret Singer was incorrect in my opinion. She was not god, after all. It is also my opinion that if she had done more research into AA, her opinions might have turned out a little differently.
AA does recruit deceptively. While you might disagree with Agent Orange's list of bait and switch (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bait-switch.html) in whole or in part, you're using ad-hominem. You're attacking him rather than his arguments or research. He's not the only person to argue that AA recruits deceptively. Stanton Peele, Ph.D ESQ, Jeffrey Schaler, Ph.D, and many other have criticized AA for being either a cult or cult-like. In addition to court coercion, AA teaches it's members explicitly to mislead newcomers as to what membership will eventually entail.
The word "sobriety", as i've stated earlier, is also redefined. A person coming to AA wanting "sobriety" has no idea that In AA, sobriety means "A special state of Grace gained by working the Steps and maintaining absolute abstinence. It is characterized by feelings of Serenity and Gratitude. It is a state of living according to God's will, not one's own." AA Also tells it's members to decieve newcomers about this: "There is no use arousing any prejudice he may have against certain theological terms and conceptions about which he may already be confused. Don't raise such issues, no matter what your own convictions are. The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Working With Others, page 93." Newcomers are simply told that "more will be revealed" (implying the group has access to hidden wisdom, not necessarily knowlege explicitly).
In AA members can leave at any point. This is true beyond a doubt. But AA also teaches that they are the "last house on the block", that their program of recvery is the "only way" and that those who leave will eventually return broken. They teach people that they are powerless to the point where binging behavior increases five fold over no treatment at all*. IN other words, they have no reason to restrict people leaving since they indoctrinate people into believing that AA is the only path to "sobriety". Indeed, they even have the justice system referring people who get in trouble back to them. In this instance, by influencing the government (see Hazelden's Little Red book), AA has been able to accomplish through government coercion what many cults and cult-like groups could only dream of.
*Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.
Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page you quote for evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.
Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4 (http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4)
“As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”
So Rick Ross attends a few open meetings and says a place is not a cult or cult like. Well. Good for him. I know of AA chapters that are not cult-like AT ALL. I have heard of AA meetings in which they smoke pot! On the other hand, there are some very fundamentalist AA sects, one of which in DC was recently in the news. Attending a few meetings does not make one an expert on the subject.
Also it should be noted that instead of hearing Agent Orange out, Rick Ross simply banned him from his forum and deleted many of his posts. Maybe you want to hear his side of the story:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rross_aa01.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rross_aa01.html)
Just because somebody is an "expert" does not mean they are always right. NEVER forget that. Read, research, and make up your own damn mind.
Stanton Peele, Ph.D advised Charles Bufe on his book, "AA, Cult or Cure". In that book Bufe concluded that communal AA was cult-like and instutional AA can fit the criteria of a cult.
I do not “follow” A.A.
But you clipped off my question earlier. Are your or are you not an AA member. Do you or do you not attend AA. See. This is what's frustrating about critizing AA as an organization. You never know when somebody is a member and has ulterior motives. For all anybody knows, Rick Ross could be a member. It would make sense considering he's made it verboten to discuss AA on his board... but you're anonymous here anyway.... no need to lie or be deceptive about your group affiliations. I'd respect you more if you were honest about where you are coming from.
My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.
It's an organization that indisputably does not exploit it's membership. I totally agree with that. That' one of the reasons AA is not a cult. On the other hand, AA, a religious organization as judged by the courts DOES try and use it's membership to witness to others and spread their faith USING THE STATE. That i DO have a BIG problem with. As I stated in my post herehere (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p32281), I have a problem with coerced treatment of ANY kind.
-
Who cares. If you don't like AA, then don't go. The only people "coerced" to go, are people that got DUI's, and they should consider themselves lucky they didn't get jail. Would you rather sit in the back of a few meetings, or rot in jail? I know which one I'd choose. This whole anti-AA agenda is much to do about nothing, makes you look crazy.
Yup, that's what most people assume. So when someone comes along who disagrees with what "everybody knows", well I guess we do seem a little nuts. However, the majority is dead wrong in this case. This is very gradually starting to come to light thanks to a few unreasonable, stubborn and unusually inquisitive journalists. Here's one example:
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=25502&p=311917&hilit=ruland#p311917 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=25502&p=311917&hilit=ruland#p311917)
One of the biggest problems with Stepcraft is that the real die hard true believers honestly believe that everyone's an alcoholic. Even if you've never had a drink but you are critical of Stepcraft then you're a dry alcoholic. Therefore, they believe they're doing everyone a huge favor--saving the world--if they can force Stepcraft onto as much of the population as possible.
-
I have read Lifton, Singer, and ofshe among others. I know full well what brainwashing is by their definitions. I know what the criteria for cults are, and I know that you have not read certain books because if you had, you would be bringing up some better counterarguments.
I would like to hear one element of a cult you think that AA does not have, other than the lack of a charismatic leader, which i'll concede. You claim you have studied cults... let me test that if you challenge me. I can name another element AA does not have off the top of my head. Let's see if you can name it.
I’m not interested in playing “Who knows Cults” against defending champion, Psy..
Your implication is I am uneducated so my opinion isn't as valid as yours. So, recognize your opinion isn't as valid as cultic experts. All of whom, that take a position on this issue, hold that A.A. is NOT a cult or cult-like. Upon study, Margaret Singer and Rick Ross hold that A.A. doesnt use thought reform, nor is not cult-like or a cult.
First. Margaret singer did NOT say that AA was not cult-like. She said that it was not a cult. I agree with her on that. The reasons she cited on page 97 of Cults in our midst are "AA does not recruit deceptively, AA does not hide what membership wil eventually entail, and members can leave at any point. AA focuses on helping people grow instead of tearing them down". She did NOT say they do not practice thought reform and she did NOT say that the organization was not cult-like. That being said, I think she was at least partially incorrect about the organization in a few ways.
IT's important to note that as I've cited earlier in this thread, AA does recruit deceptively and hide what membership will eventually entail. In that regard, i'm sorry to say that, despite her knowledge and wisdom, Margaret Singer was incorrect in my opinion. She was not god, after all. It is also my opinion that if she had done more research into AA, her opinions might have turned out a little differently.
AA does recruit deceptively. While you might disagree with Agent Orange's list of bait and switch (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bait-switch.html) in whole or in part, you're using ad-hominem. You're attacking him rather than his arguments or research. He's not the only person to argue that AA recruits deceptively. Stanton Peele, Ph.D ESQ, Jeffrey Schaler, Ph.D, and many other have criticized AA for being either a cult or cult-like. In addition to court coercion, AA teaches it's members explicitly to mislead newcomers as to what membership will eventually entail.
The word "sobriety", as i've stated earlier, is also redefined. A person coming to AA wanting "sobriety" has no idea that In AA, sobriety means "A special state of Grace gained by working the Steps and maintaining absolute abstinence. It is characterized by feelings of Serenity and Gratitude. It is a state of living according to God's will, not one's own." AA Also tells it's members to decieve newcomers about this: "There is no use arousing any prejudice he may have against certain theological terms and conceptions about which he may already be confused. Don't raise such issues, no matter what your own convictions are. The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Working With Others, page 93." Newcomers are simply told that "more will be revealed" (implying the group has access to hidden wisdom, not necessarily knowlege explicitly).
In AA members can leave at any point. This is true beyond a doubt. But AA also teaches that they are the "last house on the block", that their program of recvery is the "only way" and that those who leave will eventually return broken. They teach people that they are powerless to the point where binging behavior increases five fold over no treatment at all*. IN other words, they have no reason to restrict people leaving since they indoctrinate people into believing that AA is the only path to "sobriety". Indeed, they even have the justice system referring people who get in trouble back to them. In this instance, by influencing the government (see Hazelden's Little Red book), AA has been able to accomplish through government coercion what many cults and cult-like groups could only dream of.
*Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.
Agent Orange, the internet guy who created the page you quote for evidence of your beleif, actually visited the Rick.Ross forum, of the Rick Ross Institute for Cultic education, to argue A.A. is cult-like. Rick Ross states definitively A.A. is not cult-like or a cult.
Here is R.R. on the topic of A.A.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4 (http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?8,1016,page=4)
“As a staff member of Jewish Family Service in the 1980s and coordinator of its Jewish Prisoner Program for Arizona, I dealt extensively with AA. I attended meetings to find out what they were like anonymously and saw nothing wrong or supect.… my postion is that I see AA and NA as benign support groups, which I have and would again recommend to people with a substance abuse problem.”
So Rick Ross attends a few open meetings and says a place is not a cult or cult like. Well. Good for him. I know of AA chapters that are not cult-like AT ALL. I have heard of AA meetings in which they smoke pot! On the other hand, there are some very fundamentalist AA sects, one of which in DC was recently in the news. Attending a few meetings does not make one an expert on the subject.
Also it should be noted that instead of hearing Agent Orange out, Rick Ross simply banned him from his forum and deleted many of his posts. Maybe you want to hear his side of the story:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rross_aa01.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rross_aa01.html)
Just because somebody is an "expert" does not mean they are always right. NEVER forget that. Read, research, and make up your own damn mind.
Stanton Peele, Ph.D advised Charles Bufe on his book, "AA, Cult or Cure". In that book Bufe concluded that communal AA was cult-like and instutional AA can fit the criteria of a cult.
I do not “follow” A.A.
But you clipped off my question earlier. Are your or are you not an AA member. Do you or do you not attend AA. See. This is what's frustrating about critizing AA as an organization. You never know when somebody is a member and has ulterior motives. For all anybody knows, Rick Ross could be a member. It would make sense considering he's made it verboten to discuss AA on his board... but you're anonymous here anyway.... no need to lie or be deceptive about your group affiliations. I'd respect you more if you were honest about where you are coming from.
My opinion synchs with the experts in this field: A.A has no tightly delineated, closely observed and measured hierarchy. It does not practice “brainwashing” in a reasonable sense of the word. There are no hidden rules, no hidden secret texts. All its material and designs are easily downloadable and viewable on its website. It does not seek to financially exploit its members. It’s free. They don’t accept money from non-members and there is a cap on what the organization will accept as a bequest ($2500?).You mentioned people related to A.A. supposedly made $ by selling books about it, or something; that is irrelevant. The ORGANIZATION A.A. does not expect money from its members etc, etc, SO, NO, A.A. is not cult-like or a cult, in any meaningful way.
It's an organization that indisputably does not exploit it's membership. I totally agree with that. That' one of the reasons AA is not a cult. On the other hand, AA, a religious organization as judged by the courts DOES try and use it's membership to witness to others and spread their faith USING THE STATE. That i DO have a BIG problem with. As I stated in my post herehere (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p32281), I have a problem with coerced treatment of ANY kind.
I’m not going much further with you because it won’t go anywhere.
But to reiterate:
1) Margaret Singer herself held A.A. is not cult-like or a cult and does NOT practice thought reform, according to R.R. I will find the exact quote and post it, time permitting.
2) Rick Ross, of the Rick Ross Cultic Study Institute, who has extensive experience with A.A., has been professionally studying and dealing with cults since 1982, the first to successfully challenge Landmark Education, who qualifies Herbalife as a cult and so qualifies things that are not “obviously cultic” as cultic, says:
“A.A. is outside the spectrum of cult or cult-like organizations and their manipulations”
3) NO cultic expert, all of whom have familiarity with A.A. because of its position in the public consciousness since 1935, has opined that A.A. practices thought reform, is a cult, or “cult like.”
Stanton Peele and the others you have mentioned are not cultic experts. A.O is an anonymous internet person.
Cultic experts have no “agendas” re. A.A. because they’ve no special interest in alcoholism, politics, or theories other than the epistemology of though reform, unlike those you reference, perhaps. Unlike those you reference they are genuine experts on the subject.
We can go back and forth forever, but because EVERY cultic expert in the field qualifies A.A. as neither a cult, nor cult-like, nor a practitioner of thought reform after extensive familiarity with the association the matter is settled within reason.
-
I do not “follow” A.A.
But you clipped off my question earlier. Are your or are you not an AA member. Do you or do you not attend AA. See. This is what's frustrating about critizing AA as an organization. You never know when somebody is a member and has ulterior motives. For all anybody knows, Rick Ross could be a member. It would make sense considering he's made it verboten to discuss AA on his board... but you're anonymous here anyway.... no need to lie or be deceptive about your group affiliations. I'd respect you more if you were honest about where you are coming from.
.
I know you think A.A. is cult-like. But your opinion and the opinion of mostly internet people does not fall within the parameters of expert findings or credentialed scientific application, as WWASP opinion on treatment does not within the parameters of expert findings or credentialed scientific application. You are welcome to your position, but it is not the scientifically valid one.
I’ve said several times I’m not affiliated with A.A. I have never liked alchohol and never drank at all so have never had reasons to be a “follower,” as you would put it, thereby “loading the language.”
If I were to continually insinuate that you have an ”agenda" against A.A. because you failed the program you would tell me I am behaving in a cult-like manner, right? Don’t act in a “brainwashed” manner by continuing to imply that I am some kind of cult member. Please stop saying that people who don’t think A.A. is a cult or cult-like (like Rick Ross and M.S.) are uneducated or brainwashed.
-
Rick Ross has no more official qualifications than I do, or anybody else. He's a self designated expert (though I agree with mos of what he says). Do I purport to be an expert on anything? Not really. All my words are just my opinions, as they are with anybody else here. I don't pretend to be an authority on anything and I believe people should generally make up their own minds rather than defaulting to what the "Experts" say.
I'd just like to note that your entire rebuttal to everything i've said rests on appeal to authority (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). At least I've made arguments in addition to citing sources to support those argumetns.
Stanton Peele and Jeff Schaler, both Ph.Ds have both had experience studying cults. Both hold that while AA is not itself a cult, it does have cult-like elements. I would also argue (as I have argued in this thread, and the books about AA thread) that AA does practice a mild yet effective in the long term form of thought reform.
But all this "aa is a cult/cult-like", "no it's not" is really besides the point:
- AA is ineffective at best (same sucess rate as spontanious recovery, even in their own studies) and harmful at worst (I cited a study, hardly the only one in existance, that held that AA participants had a 5 times higher rate of binge drinking).
- AA, cult or not, does have an organizational structure that publishes it's dogma and through that, directives to it's members who hold such texts to be divinely inspired scripture. Such directives include influencing the government to refer people to AA/NA. In many cases people are not given a "or jail" option. In many cases, those sent to jail are forced into AA and Synanon style TC groups. Through the only authority many convicts know, they are told that AA/NA is the only way. They are not told of or given alternatives. A significant number of AA members are introduced to AA through this or a similarly coerced method (example: job tells somebody to go to AA or be fired instead of saying "you drink on the job again and you're fired")
- AA does have a significant influence on the language and philosophy of many programs. It's a compatable belief system with Synanon's. Many of the staff at many programs are ex-cons who were to introduced to AA through the criminal justice system. They already believe that their sort of "treatment" is "the only way" and without that "treatment", the kids will end up deadinsaneinjail (which is an AA derived term, by the way). If you look at a Straight based program like AARC... they use the 12 steps in their literature (albeit slightly distorted and fundamentalist, but still the 12 steps). It is my belief that the doctrine of powerlessness in these programs is one factor in their horrible success rates. Unlike communal AA where it is only suggested (albeit with a "or else you will DIE"), in institutional AA settings like AARC, this "first step" is coerced and used as a method to break kids down until they have no more self confidence or belief in their own abilities. I am NOT equating programs with AA. I am simply noting that many programs have genetic roots in AA. Similarly, Teen Challenge has genetic roots in Christianity, but Christianity is not an organized entity, nor do they try and lobby the government to gain coerced members. AA is in the unique position in which they have the government court ordering people into forced conversion to their religion (http://spirrel.html#judges).
Do I hold AA responsible for programs? In a sense, yes. Since they do not claim to be a religion and advertise as treatment instead, they are held by most to be the only legitimate authority on alcoholism and addiction. Do they say "oh this is horrible" about programs or court-ordered referrals? No they tolerate it because they get 60% of their membership from those sources (November 2002 issue of the AA Grapevine). Like Charles Bufe, I see institutional AA and communal AA as two branches of the same tree, where institutional is the "re-education" portion of the group, and communal simply supports the belief system instilled during the re-education process. All of this, including the drug war as a whole, as Antigen noted, is fueled by the commonly accepted (yet fallacious) AA dogma of powerlessness and a progressive disease.
Addiction is not a disease People make choices. The only people who "can't" are those who have been taught that it's futile to try (AA powerlessness = learned helplessness). The binge drinking study I cited supports that, and I can cite other studies, such as one indicating that people who credit AA the most for their recovery yet, paradoxically also do the worst in their recovery and have the highest rates of relapsing.[/*]
Not all AA meetings are cult-like at all. I know of a series of AA meetings where the Big Book is truly only seen as a set of suggestions. I know of meetings where marajuana management is acceptable and people smoke pot in the meetings. I know of AA meetings where it is believed, contrary to official AA doctrine, that a lifelong membership in the group is neither desirable or necessary. I know of meetings that are so liberal that they hold discussions on the woes of where "aa has gone" and how cult-like AA in general has become (yes they used that term and more). I know of meetings where they will not accept court ordered people and whose members are 100% against any form or coerced treatment. That being said, most of these meetings are secret partially because they would be held to be apostates by the rest of AA as they reject a significant portion of official AA doctrine (in some cases, even the powerlessness doctrine). In these cases, these chapters of AA are more or less "splinter groups" and can hardly be considered part of the whole.
So in a sense, AA can have some good chapters, but that being said, AA, as an organized institution does direct it's members to do some very cult-like things. Whether that makes AA "cult-like" is a subjective designation anybody, not just those purporting themselves to be experts, has the right to make. Whether you agree with me is totally up to you.
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly perposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
— Dresden James
Your lunatic,
signing off...
-
You are welcome to your position, but it is not the scientifically valid one.
The term "cult-like" is a statement of opinion. It cannot be proven true or false, valid or invalid, by any objective standard.
I’ve said several times I’m not affiliated with A.A. I have never liked alchohol and never drank at all so have never had reasons to be a “follower,” as you would put it, thereby “loading the language.”
If I were to continually insinuate that you have an ”agenda" against A.A. because you failed the program you would tell me I am behaving in a cult-like manner, right? Don’t act in a “brainwashed” manner by continuing to imply that I am some kind of cult member.
no. I was just curious about where you were coming from is all. I must have missed the bit where you stated that you were unaffiliated with AA.
Please stop saying that people who don’t think A.A. is a cult or cult-like (like Rick Ross and M.S.) are uneducated or brainwashed.
I never said that, or even implied it. Al I said was that maybe they didn't look into it enough.
Look. If you've never gone to AA and never drank, I suggest you start going. Attend a few open meetings, and make up some story to gain access to the more secretive elements (the closed meetings). Stick around for some time, get a sponsor, do the steps. Do all that shtick. Try expressing dissent or questioning their phiosophy and see what happens... Then maybe you'll change your mind. Until then, it's you appealing to authority (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) vs me making actual arguments and citing sources (not a single one of which you have shown to contain false statements).
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly perposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
— Dresden James
-
I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.
This is what I'm hearing from our guest:
"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."
Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...
I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.
-
I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.
This is what I'm hearing from our guest:
"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."
Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...
I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.
Uh, he hasn't reseached the topic. He basically cherry-picks from the "reseach" supplied by an anonymous internet person "orange." Trust me, google "cult" and "A.A." and you can do all the "reseach" psy has in 30 seconds
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... us&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS305US305&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=agent+orange+alcoholics+anonymous&spell=1)
The fellow thinks that Yahoo disconnected from his email as part of a deliberate conspiracy to silence him for some pretty baseless reasons
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-censored.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-censored.html)
He promotes a place called Rational Recovery, which is an anti-A.A. recovery group, whose owner openly calls A.A. a cult, is a booming financial operation, and is accused of being a cult itself.
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FRr ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FRr69zoC-xYJ:www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html+orange+papers+rational+recovery&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
The “sources” he cites “proving” A.A’s cult-like nature are “Orange” or "Rengels." They misapply criteria(mostly innarpropriate, out of date criteria) to create “false positives” of cultism. T
hey may not even be actual people, but internet creations of the guy behind Rational Recovery, for all you know.
Speaking of have I been to A.A., psy, and you to a lesser extent, are creating a catch-22. People who have been to A.A. and think it's ok or helpful are brainwashed, and people who have not and think it's ok or helpful don't know what they are talking about. I have extensive experience with AA clones, the X.A.s.
I was forced to attend. If anyone was going to be ripe for brainwashing and abuse it was me. Nothing ANYTHING like brainwashing was present, let alone systematice cultic derivitive brainwashing.
I am offended when I hear X.A described as cult-like, or a thought-reform center, because having been in a GENUINE thought-reform center and a GENUINE cult I don't like having that very specific, special term confused and misused. People don't understand cults and thought- reform. Trivializing the seriousness of thought reform, confusing the term further, robbing me of my language, the only words I have to describe what was done to me is HORRIBLE.
The views of the cultic experts are very relevant because they have studied first hand, authenticated sources extensively, understand systematology, and bring a reliable, unbiased, deeply penetrative viewpoint to the subject. Credentials and competence matter. We don’t decide the reality of Global Warming by polling everyone with a website. Whether something is a cult or not is NOT just an opinion. There are criteria which when applied by competent people will have consistent objective results, which is why NO expert has come to the conclusion A.A. is cultic. This is why EVERY EXPERT who studies the matter comes to the conclusion that CEDU, STRAIGHT, DESISTO, TEEN CHALLENGE are in the cult-spectrum and DO practise thought reform.
To actually, responsibly research something you don't just google and give a link. You observe firsthand over a period of time, authenticate your prescence; you'd study A.A's articles of incorperation and bylaws and systemology, you'd actually understand the criteria of cultishness, and i have seen psy misaply them so deeply, i don't think he does. I have reseached this to a certain extent and if you read my post you'd notice that. But I obviously have not researched this in a way thatrises to a reliable fashion.
Who has done that? Margeret Singer, Rick Ross. They have already done that extensively and refering to their findings, one of whom wrote an ENTIRE book about how A.A. does not fall into the cult-spectrum is a fine way of combatting absurdity. Otherwise, we are just two internet people counter googling. I am going to post M.S's exact quotes about A.A when I have the time.--(I waste too much time here)
-
I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.
This is what I'm hearing from our guest:
"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."
Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...
I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.
LOL. Well said.
And contrary to what the guest thinks (who continues to state "I have researched and he is wrong" (yet cites no research), appeals to authority, attacks sources I cite with ad-hominem, can do nothing but appeal to authority, and claims I have cited only one source....
I have cited many sources:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322008 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322008)
And those are just the books that are online about the topic.
In addition, in this thread I cited sources directly from AA literature, from double blind studies done on AA members compared to alcoholics with no treatment, from AA's own studies, form personal experience, from Charles Bufe, Jeffery Schaler Ph.D and Stanton Peele Ph.D.
Again, our infinately honest guest LIES to personally attack Agent Orange (rather than his arguments) claiming that he promotes rational recovery and that Rational Recovery is a cult.
LOL. First of all, if you bothred to click on the guest's own link (http://http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FRr69zoC-xYJ:www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html+orange+papers+rational+recovery&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) claiming Agent Organge promotes Rational Recovery, you'll find that Rational Recovery is NUMBER FOURTEEN on his suggested reading list. Also on that reading list is just about every single alternative AA and book on aa imaginable. LOL. And this guest who has "done his research" (lol) accuses Rational Recovery of being a cult when they don't' even have meetings. LOLOL
And our guest writes:
Speaking of have I been to A.A., psy, and you to a lesser extent, are creating a catch-22. People who have been to A.A. and think it's ok or helpful are brainwashed, and people who have not and think it's ok or helpful don't know what they are talking about.
No, guest. I didn't attack anybody's personal experiences at all nor did I say that AA didn't work at all. What i DID do was cite several double blind studies. You're the only one here usign anecdotal evidence and a whole slew of logical fallacies.
LOL. and now our guest has been to AA. What changed? LOL. I stop a conversation when the person I'm arguing with starts to blatantly lie and generally swuirm agound. I'm done here.
-
Uh, he hasn't reseached the topic. He basically cherry-picks from the "reseach" supplied by an anonymous internet person "orange." Trust me, google "cult" and "A.A." and you can do all the "reseach" psy has in 30 seconds
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... us&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS305US305&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=agent+orange+alcoholics+anonymous&spell=1)
LOL. Only you didn'g googloe "cult" and "AA" You googled "agent orange" and "AA". LOL. Trying to make it seem like he's the sole sources who has called AA a cult or cult-like. HERE is a google of "cult" and "AA" (http://http://www.google.fr/search?q=cult+AA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
And re-read the thread, guest. I already quoted singer. The quotation you're looking for is on page 97 of Cults in our Midst
-
I'm going to have to agree with Guest on this one. They make some good points and seem very knowledgeable on this subject. On the other hand, psy seems to get annoyed with the very idea anyone would dare challenge his anti-AA agenda. I think a lot of this has to do with psy wanting to prove to antigen that his views are in line with hers. I can't know for sure, but it seems like he goes out of his way to defend the conspiracy theories that dominate the thinking of fornits leadership. they think george bush and the cia put them in a program, and that 9.11 was done by the military, that AA is a cult like program. This is called persecution complex. Its not surprising that people subjected to programs would develop such a disorder. think about it, psy and antigen agree on pretty much everything, like psy is her protege or something its pretty funny.
I think people forget that the fornits leadership are also active libertarians, and endorsed ron paul on this website before the election. Under libertarian philosophy there would zero regulation of programs, and parents could do whatever they wanted to their kids. This is working in the opposite direction of shutting down programs. Even lon woodbury, and sue scheff want more regulation, control and justice for programs than does psy.
Fornits is a refuge for people who have no one left willing to listen to them. They can rant on for hours about topics nobody cares about like whether AA should be allowed to operate, or if scientology is a cult, or if the government is responsible for 9.11. This naturally attracts other like minded people , and then they fight with each other over these topics. The more deluded people argue with passion, somehow thinking their opinion is going to impact the topic they discuss. this requires an immense amount of arrogance, something that does not run short on this website.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. this fact applies in the case of this forum. By assuming you could organize and prove programs wrong, the opposite is actually happening. this site will continue to lure people in for these reasons, and some will actually adopt their hard core fornits views and make it a large part of their life like psy. I can't help but feel sorry for these people though. Its not really their fault, and it probably helps their self esteem to be able to give themselves a "role" to play. it gives them a reason to feel they are needed.
For the non deluded you know this thread is a big waste of effort and time. No minds are changed about AA , which will continue to grow and thrive because people go to it. a few people might read through this thread, but they are people who will never meet each other, and who's assumptions about each other are probably way off base. if you get pissed off or concerned about what some person on the internet says you need to take a look at yourself. so if you are feeling a need to respond to this post, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing to yourself. dont get caught in the trap. and if you are caught, its time to release yourself. you might have some regret, but thats the small price to pay for freedom. See what i mean about this site being meaningless to most people, i got you to waste a few minutes reading something i wont even remember or care about in an hour. sucker. he,he,he.
-
It is useless, for you are affected by nothing, having erected an impenetrable armor around yourself. You feel nothing. Unable to understand your situation, you react through thought, which is your ideas and mentations. Reaction is thought. I have a place in my mind where I go time to time. Whatever needs to be maintained through force is doomed. It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on and i'm tired of being tormented to hell, that's what i'm tired of.
-
I don't understand how someone who has never been to an AA meeting, does not have an addiction problem and never personally experienced the topic of discussion would be so willing to argue a general misconception to the teeth with someone who clearly has done much more research on the subject and DOES have personal experience with AA.
This is what I'm hearing from our guest:
"Psy is expressing his opinion in a way that threatens me."
"If the "experts" haven't said EXACTLY what Psy is saying then he MUST be wrong."
and "I dont really know anything about AA besides that it is widely accepted so it couldn't be a cult."
Do you realize how ignorant these arguments are?...
I may or may not agree with Psy, but it seems to me that the way he has researched the topic and the manner of which he decided to express his findings is not only appropriate, but also impressive. Over all I am not educated enough on this subject to challenge his opinions, but even if I was the last thing I would do is make the irrelevant arguments you have. This to me sounds like a personal vendetta not an educational debate.
LOL. Well said.
And contrary to what the guest thinks (who continues to state "I have researched and he is wrong" (yet cites no research), appeals to authority, attacks sources I cite with ad-hominem, can do nothing but appeal to authority, and claims I have cited only one source....
I have cited many sources:
http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 53#p322008 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322008)
And those are just the books that are online about the topic.
In addition, in this thread I cited sources directly from AA literature, from double blind studies done on AA members compared to alcoholics with no treatment, from AA's own studies, form personal experience, from Charles Bufe, Jeffery Schaler Ph.D and Stanton Peele Ph.D.
Again, our infinately honest guest LIES to personally attack Agent Orange (rather than his arguments) claiming that he promotes rational recovery and that Rational Recovery is a cult.
LOL. First of all, if you bothred to click on the guest's own link (http://http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FRr69zoC-xYJ:www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html+orange+papers+rational+recovery&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) claiming Agent Organge promotes Rational Recovery, you'll find that Rational Recovery is NUMBER FOURTEEN on his suggested reading list. Also on that reading list is just about every single alternative AA and book on aa imaginable. LOL. And this guest who has "done his research" (lol) accuses Rational Recovery of being a cult when they don't' even have meetings. LOLOL
And our guest writes:
Speaking of have I been to A.A., psy, and you to a lesser extent, are creating a catch-22. People who have been to A.A. and think it's ok or helpful are brainwashed, and people who have not and think it's ok or helpful don't know what they are talking about.
No, guest. I didn't attack anybody's personal experiences at all nor did I say that AA didn't work at all. What i DID do was cite several double blind studies. You're the only one here usign anecdotal evidence and a whole slew of logical fallacies.
LOL. and now our guest has been to AA. What changed? LOL. I stop a conversation when the person I'm arguing with starts to blatantly lie and generally swuirm agound. I'm done here.
Huh? I haven't "LIED." Calm down. I am a long time contributer here. I find what your AA posts absurd, and trivializing of genuine thought reform and cultic abuse. I have xtra time now, so for the first time have bother responding to you. For the most part, i don't bother.
Some corrections:
LOL. Only you didn'g googloe "cult" and "AA" You googled "agent orange" and "AA". LOL. Trying to make it seem like he's the sole sources who has called AA a cult or cult-like. HERE is a google of "cult" and "AA"
I didn’t say I googled “cult and "A.A.” to get the orange papers.
I said your research isn’t original and, (particularly the points about A.A.being cultic) is the reiteration of points made by unreliable sources which can found within 30 seconds by googling “cult” and “A.A”.
That is not considered "research" academically.
Your links that relating A.A's cultism were l rangels and Orange, anonymous, perhaps unreal people.
Orange “recommends” The Rational Recovery Website and two books by J.T., who started the booming enterprise R.R., are in his “top ten reading” list beneath Charles Bufe’s book.
Orange says “This book does what A.A. only claims to do — "give you the tools you will need to maintain sobriety". “
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html)
My point was these people are not reliable sources and one seems to have something going on with Rational Recovery that may be a little fishy.
The other "citation," and "source" Charles Bufe makes up his own set of cultic criteria, and then declares that A.A. matches up with them
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter9.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter9.htm)
""I've included them here as characteristics 3, 5, 10, and 12, though I've relabeled most of them, and I've reinterpreted all of them to some extent. I've also added two of the characteristics listed by Margaret Singer in her important recent book, Cults In Our Midst; here they're listed as characteristics 8 and 17. As a result of these additions, my list of cult criteria now includes 23 characteristics""
Bufe subtracts meaningful cultic measuremnet from Singer and Lifton and invents his own system which is hollow and unhelpful.
My point is unless people are prepared to do original research on this matter themselves, which is very time consuming, they should go by reliable sources. Both Margret Singer and Rick Ross, reliable sources, have stated that A.A. is a group and not in the cult spectrum.
No, guest. I didn't attack anybody's personal experiences at all nor did I say that AA didn't work at all. What i DID do was cite several double blind studies. You're the only one here usign anecdotal evidence and a whole slew of logical fallacies.
I don’t want to make he/said she/said but if you read back(and haven’t edited anything) you are dismissive of people’s first-hand experience with X.A. If they say it was alright, you imply they are brainwashed, and you continually accuse people of being secret A.A agenda promoters. I've never sought treatment with A.A, as I said. I was forced into the X.A. programs. You even implied Bufe was brainwashed because he doesn't want A.A. discussed on his site
And contrary to what the guest thinks (who continues to state "I have researched and he is wrong" (yet cites no research), appeals to authority, attacks sources I cite with ad-hominem, can do nothing but appeal to authority, and claims I have cited only one source....
I've cited the research of Rick Ross and Margeret Singer. Remember? M.A's ENTIRE book is about how A.A. is not cult-like. When I fish it out of my trunks, I'll post her ORIGINAL research.
(getting depressed over how much time i waste....)
-
btw. I'm not saying that R.R. is a cult, I said it was accused of being a "cult"
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:bje ... cd=1&gl=us (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:bjeUImN56ukJ:www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/459.html%3F1199220077+%22rational+recovery+is+a+money+based+cult%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
"Hi Everyone! I think I just had a free rational recovery.I'd say its a new religion, that includes every man, woman, and child, here on earth.Think I found the basis to our bad behavior and mental illnesses. Our problem? Our hearts are broken.Spirits. A couple years ago I saw the symptoms to post-traumatic stress disordersee if you see yourself and everyone else somewhere in this)ANXIETY, CONFUSION, PANIC ATTACKS, FEARS, PHOBIAS, DEPRESSION, LOW SELF-ESTEEM, SHAME, GUILT, ANGER, INABILITY TO TRUST SELF OR OTHERS, NIGHTMARES, INSOMNIA,AMNESIA, VIOLENCE, SHY, HYPERVIGILANCE, HYPERCONSCIOUSNESS OF BODY AND APPEARANCE,SELF DESTRUCTIVE ADDICTIONS:ALCOHOL, DRUGS, EATING DISORDERS, SEX, GAMBLING,HOARDING, SHOPAHOLIC, PARANOIA, OCD, ADD, OUT OF CONTROL,ETC. When I saw this list I wondered if I was a trauma victim. When I was about 7 years old, a change came over me that has always had me puzzled. I became shy and full of anxiety. Later years I'd describe myself as drunk, angry, and out of control. I'm 53 now so I've been messed up quite awhile. Once I figured that all this pointed to a broken spirit, I started calming down. After a couple months I started to understand that this is what is wrong with alot of others. With time the list grew. After 5 months I wondered what was going on? I was sure defending the heck out of others. Answer= my heart was starting to work again. I was becoming more compassionate. After 9 months I figured everyone is totally innocent. A few months later I read the story of Adam and Eve again. They were naked and not ashamed. After the apple bit they were hiding, afraid, and self-conscious(put on fig leaves). Those are symptoms of PTSD.They started blaming everybody else too. There is no one to blame. This is the curse of mankind. We catch this hateful disease from each other. PTSD is not just for war vets and sexually abused children. bullyonline.com says that bullying is probably the biggest cause of it. I.E.: the other kids at school, our siblings, people at work, etc. For me I think it was chiefly the kids at school. Does't matter. Everyone gets infected with this, so I would of caught it from someone else. Anyway, before I stumbled on to this, I belonged more or less to the"religious right". I believed in the Devil and that most people were going to Hell, the world was going to end, and Jesus was going to come out of the clouds and save me. The only thing I think is going to end now is our present belief system. This mis-judgment of ourselves. I've got hope now in my fellow man and our future. I'm driving less, recycling more. For all the children and the polars bears sakes, please consider this. Love Gayle"
and
"prschuster declares that rational recovery is not a cult, despite Trimpey's "absolutist" ideas. "absolutist" sends up a red flag for me as absolutist ideology is at the heart of cultish thinking. prschuster has no objections to absolutist thinking, but indicates that what would make rr a cult would be if it practiced multi-level marketing. This kind of marketing can been defined as a scams or pyramid schemes, but certainly not cults. The fact is that Trimpey does practice multi-level (or pyramid) marketing. He offers his internet crash course for free (a single paragraph of simplistic ideas). But if this is not enough, he urges you to pay for the more extensive online mini-course. And if this doesn't work, you are urged to lay down a couple of thousand, plus traveling and lodging expenses, to attend his four day "class" in person. (He also offers a two day weekend "class" for the discounted price of $1400.) His website also offers several levels of subscription, one for those who are "tough cases" (his own words), which would require that they stay with rr for a longer period of time. There are weekly, monthly, and annual subscription "opportunities," and also a "patron" subscription level. If Trimpey didn't want to hook people in long-term, why would he offer these various subscriptions? And why in the world does a profit making organization have a patron category, a category usually available only through non-profit groups, such as symphony, art, and charitable organizations. These subscriptions are, in essence, donations. Why would anybody in their right mind donate to an organization that already makes a huge profit from "class tuitions," and the selling of the numerous Jack Trimpey products advertised on the site. What a HUGE scam!"
-
I'm going to have to agree with Guest on this one. They make some good points and seem very knowledgeable on this subject. On the other hand, psy seems to get annoyed with the very idea anyone would dare challenge his anti-AA agenda. I think a lot of this has to do with psy wanting to prove to antigen that his views are in line with hers. I can't know for sure, but it seems like he goes out of his way to defend the conspiracy theories that dominate the thinking of fornits leadership. they think george bush and the cia put them in a program, and that 9.11 was done by the military, that AA is a cult like program.
Just for the record, I never said the government put anybody in a program or that there was any sort of conspiracy to that effect. In fact, I stated quite the opposite (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26507#p322492). I can't recall where 9/11 has been mentioned here aside from anybody but maybe Deborah... and I never said AA was a cult like program. I said it was a cult-like religion with undue influence on our society and government.
-
Huh? I haven't "LIED." Calm down. I am a long time contributer here. I find what your AA posts absurd, and trivializing of genuine thought reform and cultic abuse. I have xtra time now, so for the first time have bother responding to you. For the most part, i don't bother.
Some corrections:
LOL. Only you didn'g googloe "cult" and "AA" You googled "agent orange" and "AA". LOL. Trying to make it seem like he's the sole sources who has called AA a cult or cult-like. HERE is a google of "cult" and "AA"
I didn’t say I googled “cult and "A.A.” to get the orange papers.
I said your research isn’t original and, (particularly the points about A.A.being cultic) is the reiteration of points made by unreliable sources which can found within 30 seconds by googling “cult” and “A.A”.
Yes, you stated all the sources were unreliable without every specifically citing any false statements. It's blanket discrediting.
That is not considered "research" academically.
But I did cite academic research... LOL. Lots and lots of academic research can be found on a google search. What you're trying to imply is that because something can be found by a search engine, it's automatically false!
Your links that relating A.A's cultism were l rangels and Orange, anonymous, perhaps unreal people.
Unreal people? I guess he must be an alien then. Look. If you've read some of his "fan mail" he gets, you'll note threats and more. I don't blame him for wanting to be anonymous, and that is his right.
Orange “recommends” The Rational Recovery Website and two books by J.T., who started the booming enterprise R.R., are in his “top ten reading” list beneath Charles Bufe’s book.
Orange says “This book does what A.A. only claims to do — "give you the tools you will need to maintain sobriety". “
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-top10.html)
My point was these people are not reliable sources and one seems to have something going on with Rational Recovery that may be a little fishy.
So guilt by association? You manage to contort imply that RR is a cult (by one allegation by some extremely reliable source (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90#p323086)) and that AO is somehow "fishy" referring to them as an alternative that worked for him (despite the fact he lists MANY other alternatives). I guess only anecdotal evidence to support AA is ok... LOL. And you say I'm stretching it by implying AA is cult-like.
The other "citation," and "source" Charles Bufe makes up his own set of cultic criteria, and then declares that A.A. matches up with them
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter9.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter9.htm)
""I've included them here as characteristics 3, 5, 10, and 12, though I've relabeled most of them, and I've reinterpreted all of them to some extent. I've also added two of the characteristics listed by Margaret Singer in her important recent book, Cults In Our Midst; here they're listed as characteristics 8 and 17. As a result of these additions, my list of cult criteria now includes 23 characteristics""
Bufe subtracts meaningful cultic measuremnet from Singer and Lifton and invents his own system which is hollow and unhelpful.
That's not quite true (you omit a lot). He cited cultic characteristics from number of people, not just singer (such as lifton, etc). He also concluded that AA was not a cult, but could be considered cult-like. Have you actually read the book?
My point is unless people are prepared to do original research on this matter themselves, which is very time consuming, they should go by reliable sources. Both Margret Singer and Rick Ross, reliable sources, have stated that A.A. is a group and not in the cult spectrum.
I addressed margaret singer and Rick Ross in this post: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p323045 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p323045)
I urge everybody to do their own research. Sure authorities on subjects are often right, but not always... If they were we would call them "infallible sources" and not "reliable sources".
I've cited the research of Rick Ross and Margeret Singer. Remember? M.A's ENTIRE book is about how A.A. is not cult-like. When I fish it out of my trunks, I'll post her ORIGINAL research.
(getting depressed over how much time i waste....)
I already posted the only quotation (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p323045) referring to AA in Margaret Singer's book. It's on page 97.
-
It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. . . i'm tired of being tormented to hell, that's what i'm tired of.
:rofl: :cheers: :rocker: :beat: :agree: :dose: :roflmao: :roflmao: :rasta:
-
I have absolutely no idea with the govt. of China would block the Orange Pages.... :soapbox:
But this page here, perused after I proxied up, provides the laughs:
http://http://www.orange-papers.org%2Forange-pmachine7.html
Now that's quality.