My Opinions

[Anonymous]

:flame: hi, im a grad of the program too, its too bad that you seem so stuck to your stats theory. regardless of stats, what really matters is its an option for users to get help, wether they recover or not. how old are you

[Anonymous]

Well, I am glad you were able to deal with your addictions without help. That is amazing and you are a really lucky person. I would like you to tell me what methods you chose to use to deal withyour addictions as I am interested in that. However. You do know that you can try something and have it in the back of your mind that it wont work for you and create the results you want from that. In other words, I could go to an AA meeting to say I am being "tolerant" and tryign something new, but if I know I hate it and know that it sucks, than all i would do is try to find any thing wrong with it I could so that i could prove myself right. I dont knwo if that is what oyu did with AA, but it seems like you are so opposed to it that that might be the case.

[Anonymous]

I never said I dont believe in statistics. I have no belief systems that spring from statistics, but that dosnt mean that I think all statistics ar phony. but I do know that statistics ar biased. I could look up something on the internet that would support my point of view just as easily as you can but that dosnt mean they are fool proof. Statistics are an indication that something is true, not a cure all. And since I think you will find any darn statistic you can to prove your point there is no reason for me to believe you arent being biased about this. And I really dont appreciate you calling me "math challenged". you know nothing about me and base this assumption on the fact that I dont believe that statistics are the end all answer. They are a tool and nothing more. I am not an idiot. i understand statistics, but for you to say that you have a statistic so it must be true and that statistics are more important than peoples actual results is proposterous.

[Deborah]

Oh no, no, no. I did not go to those meetings looking for help, or to consider AA for myself. I went as a guest of my friends, and with the one because she couldn't go a day without a group. By that time 'excess' wasn't an issue for me anyway.

Look, when I hear about some method or technique and I can't wrap your mind around the beginning assumptions (ie.. helpless, powerless, higher power, etc. etc) I don't bother. That mentality is not for me... too much like organized religion.... opiate of the masses.

I was 'tolerant' of their choice to particpate in AA. Very tolerant.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than you can fathom. Perhaps you will expand your knowledge base over time. And if not, you have something that appears to work for you. Enjoy.

[Deborah]

Anon,
It might benefit you to slow down and read more carefully. I think your defensiveness is interfering with comprehension.

Tim said to find out WHO created the stats and what vested interest they might have... or something to that effect. So, you take the exaggerated stats of the Pros and of the Cons and somewhere in the middle might be the truth.

As for the AA stats... if you'd read the link I provided you'd know that those stats, on efficacy, were from the horse's mouth!! Not some advarsarial group.

[Anonymous]

Deborah
So now you are calling me aliar in so many words. Huh. That really seems like a person who is trying to have a healthy discussion. I am not attacking you so i would apperciate it if you would be a little less condecending and understanding. I get heated in a debate to but i dont try to belittle the person i am talking to. If you dont want to believe me about the 5 dollars an hour fine. i happen to know it to be true because my therapist charged me that becasue I am not the wealthiest person in the world. Im sorry your professor was a butt, but that dosnt mean that you have to be one to me about this. My friend mom is a private practicing counselor, and maybe if you dont like the way you have to do things in your particular practice than do something different like her, than you wouldnt have to only refer people to AA. And I have a question for you. Are you saying that there is no point in running programs or having AA if all the people who go there dont recover? Isnt it worth it enough for those who do? Are you saying that becaus it MIGHT not work for someone than thats that and theres no point to it?

[Deborah]

Unfortunately, Ginger doesn't have a "Yawning" icon, or I'd use it.
I'm pretty much done with this interaction. You ask questions that have already been answered. That tells me that you are not interested enough in a 'discussion' to actually read and think about what others are saying.

You're way too defensive. And if AA works for you and others, more power to ya. For those who would prefer a less 'powerless' route, there are alternatives.

Was your therapists standard rate $5 an hour? That's how it sounded. I kinda doubt it. Most therapist do a certain amount of 'charity' work. It's kinda the ethical thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Ok heres the deal. YOu obviously think I am some brainwshed ridiculous child who dosnt understand the world and, apparently the universe, and therefore I believe this discussion about statistics and the program is never going to be understood from either of our points of view. When it gets to the point that you are patronizing me to make your point than I think we have gotten off track. I am interested in your methods of recovery. if you think I am too ignorant and stupid to understand them than that sucks. YOu act as if you know so much more than me. I think we would find that we both know alot about many different things. I just want to put out there my original points and those are
A) The program I went to (I wont say any others because I dont want to be presumptuous and spout out blather about somehting I know nothing personally about) was not abusive.
B)The program works for people so I think it is a good thing it exists.
C) Everyone is differnt and if something dosnt work for someone and they find a method that helps them change that than more power to them. i dont care if its AA, a treatment facility, religion, yoga, whatever. If it shows positive results NO MATTER HOW SMALL than it is important to those people it helped.
D) I think it is wrong to judge something like my program if you havnt been.

[Anonymous]

The statistics they are using have to do with people ordered by the court to go to AA. These aren't folks who just couldn't take another day of drinking and walked in the door voluntarily. I think AA is great for those who want it and are ready for it. I don't know what is "better" as far as alternatives. I only know who in my family is dead/alive; drunk/sober and AA had the biggest rate of success in my family--again--if it were on a voluntary basis.

I don't recall AA having a "zero tolerance" policy. But as I said, a lot has slipped in that doesn't belong there.

[Deborah]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... ves+to+AA+

[Perrigaud]

Deborah,
 You said it all when you said it's not for you. Great that didn't work for you and so you went and found something else that worked for you. But how dare you have the audacity to attack her on a personal level. Nothing in this world will be effective for everyone...nothing. For you to go off of statistics is your choice. However, I personally believe that there are a lot of people who need something else. Some addicts choose religion. That may not work for a majority of the group. Others may find it's simply about quitting cold turkey. Again that won't work for everyone. What people need to do is find what works for them. You don't know her. You have no idea where she's been. I enjoy a good clean conversation. However, when people like you throw in some condescending remarks it makes the conversation completely pointless. Aren't you a therapist of some sort. I wouldn't pay you a single penny to gain advice or knowledge if the way you represent yourself on a daily basis is the way you did on this thread. Bored icon? I would use one on you in a flash. People who pre-judge are weak. It's really too bad too because normally I don't mind listening to your insight. The threads name is "My OPINIONS".

Timoclea,
 You've done it again. What was that shit about saying her not understanding math simply because she doesn't believe in them? Nice assumption. You were doing great up until that point. There is no need to attack and label someone you don't know. I don't call you socially inept because you are bi-polar do I? No. No use in getting personal. These are her experiences. Don't be so quick to come to a conclusion as to what sort of person she is. She understands statistics just fine. But she doesn't believe in them. Her opinion.

I am finding that it's so easy to attack what we don't believe in. However it is harder to understand it. It's interesting to see the interaction between the difference of opinions and insight. In the end I love America for having such a melting pot of people. What works for one group may not work for another. In life all of our main goal can be summed up to happiness. We all just want to be happy. We understand that there will be down days. Days that are horrific. Yet we all go through life learning and growing. There is something for everyone. What I do think is the downfall of man is that we have a hard time looking, listening, and RESPECTING each other's opinions and experiences if they differ from ours.
[ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-03-27 01:59 ][ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-03-27 02:04 ][ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-03-27 02:12 ]

[Anonymous]

Perri,
You said:  But how dare you have the audacity to attack her on a personal level.

I have taken the time to revisit every post I contributed to this thread in consideration of your accusation. I didn't find any in which I attacked your buddy on a personal level. If you feel differently, quote what I said which you perceive as an attack.

Did they teach ya'll anything about debate? You know, where two or more people passionate discuss an issue with the understanding that you are attacking the THINKING, not the PERSON? That is what I feel I did. My guess is that both of you consider your THINKING (opinions) to be YOU. Therefore, when anyone critiques the thinking you take it personally.

***For you to go off of statistics is your choice.

Go off on statistics? I feel that is an exaggeration give that the only stats I cited came from AA and showed little efficacy, for the majority of people.

***However, I personally believe that there are a lot of people who need something else.

I guess we agree. That is what I have maintained is this debate re: AA.

***What people need to do is find what works for them. You don't know her. You have no idea where she's been.

Sweetie, I never once told your buddy she shouldn't attend AA if that works for her. Now, if she took MY 'opinions' about the methods of AA personally, not much I can do about that.

***However, when people like you throw in some condescending remarks it makes the conversation completely pointless.

Quote my condescending remarks please.

***The threads name is "My OPINIONS".

What does that mean Perri? Everyone who posts on this thread should defer to YOUR OPINIONS? Not challenge your opinions (thinking).

[Anonymous]

I will answer the reason I am concerned with the way I was sopken to.

"There are more things in heaven and earth then you can fathom."
Is that not patronizing? I could say the same for you but I don't because it has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. it was not a comment about my thouth process. YOu were not speaking of my thinking. You were reffering to me and I consider that unnecessary and a very irrelevent thing to say. I dont mind debating but just dont talk down to me.

[Anonymous]

I think what ashley was trying to say about
"the threads name is my opinion" is that she is stating "my opinion" not "my facts". It seems like you believe that just because soe statistics say something that that is enough solid evidence to prove your point. But statistics are not solid evidence. No the end all answer. That was my point about them. When you state an opinion as fact than it is no longer your opinion. And When you said you wish you had a yawning mechanism on the computer becaus apparantly you feel there is noting more to talk abou tbecause you answered my question, I thought that to be a really immature was to state that. You really havnt answered alot of my questions about your opinion. You may have answered Perri or someone else, but not me. I asked you if you thought if the program does not have a 100% success rate than do you think they should just not exist? YOu never answered that and I would like to know. There is one example out of many. It seems like you wanted to pick out the points you wanted to from my notes and talked about it till it was exhausted for you. There are other things I wrote that you never addresed. I am always up for a good debate, but I debate with those who only attack my thinking, not me or my life. I would not sidetrack to make presumptions about you so I would hope for the same respect. Anyway I am getting very bored with this topic as well. that is why I asked that question at the end of my note to spark a new topic.

[Antigen]

On 2005-03-27 09:06:00, Anonymous wrote:

You may have answered Perri or someone else, but not me. I asked you if you thought if the program does not have a 100% success rate than do you think they should just not exist?

We're not still talking about AA, right? Ok, I'd like to take a swipe at this.

Nothing in this world is 100% But we try to make reasonable risk/benefit evaluations. Doctors used to think that tonsils and appendixes were spare parts. They didn't know what they were good for, so they routinely yanked them out. We now acknowledge that they're there for some reason and only take them out if the reasonably expected benefit outweighs the reasonably expected risks.

That's not the way the confrontational TC model (the Program) is administered these days. Program proponants (not you guys, you're fairly reasonable and, I think, just starting out at really critically analyzing the issue) often make wildly unfounded claims. To listen to them, this form of treatment is both a profound, life changing experience and safer than smoking a joint. That is simply not possible.

Human beings are complex and young egos are fragile. You can't impose a radical treatment and expect profound changes w/o taking into account that some of the impact might be detrimental. If we were talking about real medicine, we'd use the term 'side effects'.

I don't think that the people providing these treatments or the people selling them, far less the people who have received them, fully understand how and why it works. And they don't seem too interested in any kind of fact based investigation or research. NIDA recently came out w/ a not-too-bad for what they had to work with study on the efficacy of just this model. Guess what? It's usually ineffective at best and often quite harmful. A quick look around these forums (where former program clients tend to hover like.... well, many of them are my friends so I won't say) will serve as a sample of long-term results.

Now, if these folks were more interested in finding out how and why their programs work and less interested in supporting their foregone conclusions, they would have been keeping data and doing studies for the past 30 years at least. But they haven't. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?

It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist