Guest guest Posted July 13, 1998 Report Share Posted July 13, 1998 > > > There has been the usual hoohaa from non-professional > groupers, most recently on an NLP (neuro-linguistic > programming) addictions list. one woman wrote that they had > never argued abt AA before I showed up - which is because > there was never an AA skeptic before I'll bet - I didnt > post on the topic first, I merely reponded to a pro-AA > post exercising fair comment. it's not an AA list, so > there's no reason why I shouldnt do so. > Sorry if you took offense, Pete, I said I wasn't blaming you. Believe me, the people on that list must be AA skeptics or they wouldn't be looking for viable alternatives. I know I am an AA skeptic. I just find that it's unfruitful to argue the merits of AA v. non-AA because nobody changes their mind and everyone gets pissed off. And that prevents people from taking positive, helpful action. Anyway, Rick Gray has made an interesting inquiry about my post, so I hope you'll respond there. Kayleigh ----- Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/12-step-free/?start=304 Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/ ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 1998 Report Share Posted July 13, 1998 Hi Kayleigh On 13 Jul 1998 14:08:21 -0000 Kayleigh wrote: > > > Sorry if you took offense, Pete, I said I wasn't blaming you. Believe me, the people on that list must be AA skeptics or they wouldn't be looking for viable alternatives. I know I am an AA skeptic. > Sorry Kayleigh, I didnt realize that that was you. for some time now Ive wondered why groupers hang around on general discussion, especially professional, addiction lists. they presumably dont want to learn anything because they think " it's all in the Book " anyway, so why are they there? the only possible reason is to be propogandists and to try to stifle other viewpoints. Look at what happened on arf. > I just find that it's unfruitful to argue the merits of AA v. non-AA because nobody changes their mind and everyone gets pissed off. None of the correspondents may change their mind and the groupers may get pissed off. I only get pissed off at gross misrepresentation, but I am learning to handle that very well. Using this argument politicians would never debate - bo-obe would ever debate anything. We dont know how many non-posters views are altered. do we surrender to the groupers and never challenge their views anywhere for fear of their abuse? over my dead body. Did the US kick us Brits back over the Atlantic for us all to be silenced by a bunch of fundamentalist cranks and thugs? > And that prevents people from taking positive, helpful action. > > Not in my view. What I post doesnt prevent anyone else from doing anything they want to do. I cant even make ppl read them if they dont want to. If *A sucks, then challenging *A is imho taking positive, helpful action. when they stop carrying their message, i'll stop challenging it. Anyway, Rick Gray has made an interesting inquiry about my post, so I hope you'll respond there. If I havent done already - too late, Ive deleted it! Pete ---------------------- Cool Briton PERSONALITY-DISORDERS LIST: http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders _____________________ " Every great scientist is part B.F. Skinner and part P.T. Barnum " - Bart Simpson's science teacher ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 1998 Report Share Posted July 13, 1998 Pete wrote >Hi Kayleigh >for some time now Ive wondered why groupers hang around on >general discussion, especially professional, addiction >lists. they presumably dont want to learn anything because >they think " it's all in the Book " anyway, so why are they >there? the only possible reason is to be propogandists and >to try to stifle other viewpoints. Look at what happened >on arf. I think some of them do it to reinforce their own beliefs. There's at least one on arf that has become quite reasonable after swapping viewpoints. Those that don't become reasonable, I think, have shaky belief systems so must become more vehement, or are clearly there just to cause mischief. It's not always easy to tell the difference, and I'm not sure they always know themselves. > >> I just find that it's unfruitful to argue the merits of >AA v. non-AA because nobody changes their mind and everyone >gets pissed off. > >None of the correspondents may change their mind and the >groupers may get pissed off. I only get pissed off at gross >misrepresentation, but I am learning to handle that very >well. Using this argument politicians would never debate >- bo-obe would ever debate anything. We dont know how many >non-posters views are altered. do we surrender to the >groupers and never challenge their views anywhere for fear >of their abuse? over my dead body. Did the US kick us >Brits back over the Atlantic for us all to be silenced by a >bunch of fundamentalist cranks and thugs? Well, I forget that all of us have different agendas. Mine is to get rid of whatever vestiges of 12 step programming remain in my thinking and get on with my life. Yours is academic. I'm not sure what you plan to do with your knowledge when you graduate. Is it your goal to participate in the scientific study of addiction and treatment? That would give you a very different slant on things. You are right about the value of debate and the effect that the debate may have on non-posters. If you want to change people's minds, however, outright debate may not be the most efficient avenue...though I know it's a well-respected British tradition. We Yanks are very crude in our practice of debate. (See arf12s.) > >> And that prevents people from taking positive, helpful >action. > > > >Not in my view. What I post doesnt prevent anyone else >from doing anything they want to do. I cant even make ppl >read them if they dont want to. If *A sucks, then >challenging *A is imho taking positive, helpful action. >when they stop carrying their message, i'll stop >challenging it. > I joined the NLP group to learn about alternatives. I subbed to arf12s to learn about alternatives. I have joined this group to learn about alternatives. I am truly disappointed that arf12s descended into flames almost immediately after I subbed. I would be very disappointed to see the same thing happen to the NLP group (although that doesn't look likely right now, it just seems that the focus is turned away from the alternatives). I really don't know what the right forum would be for an AA v. non-AA debate. The most unfortunate thing in my view is that such a debate is considered necessary at all, that ANYBODY feels they must proselytize. I have to agree that *A, as you put it, started the whole thing. >>Anyway, Rick Gray has made an interesting inquiry about my >>post, so I hope you'll respond there. > >If I havent done already - too late, Ive deleted it! > Well, if you 'd like to look you can read the list on FindMail and the address for the archives (which are not easy to navigate, imo) at the end of each post. Kayleigh >Pete >---------------------- >Cool Briton > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1998 Report Share Posted July 14, 1998 hi Calie, you wrote: " I think some of them do it to reinforce their own beliefs. There's at least one on arf that has become quite reasonable after swapping viewpoints. Those that don't become reasonable, I think, have shaky belief systems so must become more vehement, or are clearly there just to cause mischief. It's not always easy to tell the difference, and I'm not sure they always know themselves. " These are good points. If these ppl were *really* sure of their beliefs they wouldnt get so pissed off when ppl challenge them. The glenn's of this world want to create mischief, but I dont think the groupers Ive come across on lists usually are. Mine is to get rid of whatever vestiges of 12 step programming remain in my thinking and get on with my life. Yours is academic. I'm not sure what you plan to do with your knowledge when you graduate. Is it your goal to participate in the scientific study of addiction and treatment? That would give you a very different slant on things. > > Yep, that is my goal. > You are right about the value of debate and the effect that the debate may have on non-posters. If you want to change people's minds, however, outright debate may not be the most efficient avenue...though I know it's a well-respected British tradition. We Yanks are very crude in our practice of debate. (See arf12s.) So I see. sadly some of my " dirty tricks " I picked upfrom american culture - and i dont like it in myself. However, I didnt choose to start a debate. I just put my point of view and got one. if someone responds to something Ive said which i believe inaccurate, i'll say so - if that's debating, so be it. I subbed to arf12s to learn about alternatives. I have joined this group to learn about alternatives. I am truly disappointed that arf12s descended into flames almost immediately after I subbed. I would be very disappointed to see the same thing happen to the NLP group (although that doesn't look likely right now, it just seems that the focus is turned away from the alternatives). I really don't know what the right forum would be for an AA v. non-AA debate. The most unfortunate thing in my view is that such a debate is considered necessary at all, that ANYBODY feels they must proselytize. > I dont wish to proselytize - just tell the truth. If somebody's standing on street corner selling snake oil, I tell ppl its snake oil. If I were campaigning for an alternative when I did so, *then* I might be said to be proselytising. The groupers proselytize - they have to, it's their Primary Purpose (Trad 5 and Step 12). Ppl will be deflected away from alternatives unless the groupers viewpoint is challlenged. if the groupers were right and *A works for everyone, and is the best and possibly only solution to addiction, why would anyone bother to look for alternatives? to suggest alternatives is by implication to challenge the *A viewpoint. >I have to agree that *A, as you put it, started the whole thing. > Yep, and have you suggested to *charles* that he stop proselytising? why are you discussing this issue with me and not with him? could it be because you know that ppl like will never shut up and so the only way to stop the argument is for the skeptics to shut up? that's giving into ignorance and bullying, and I wont do it. Pete ---------------------- Cool Briton PERSONALITY-DISORDERS LIST: http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders _____________________ " Every great scientist is part B.F. Skinner and part P.T. Barnum " - Bart Simpson's science teacher ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1998 Report Share Posted July 14, 1998 Hi, Pete, You wrote: > Yep, and have you suggested to *charles* that he stop > proselytising? why are you discussing this issue with me > and not with him? could it be because you know that ppl > like will never shut up and so the only way to stop > the argument is for the skeptics to shut up? that's giving > into ignorance and bullying, and I wont do it. > > Pete I am discussing this issue with you, not him, because I asked you, on the NLP list, what interest had brought you there. That was a real question, sparked by real interest on my part, since I have been told that academics usually frown on NLP as not being " scientically based. " As an afterthought, I tacked on the remark about AA discussion, which you then posted about on this list. So I responded. And you responded. And I responded. And you responded. And that is why I am discussing it with you. Kayleigh ----- Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/12-step-free/?start=308 Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/ ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1998 Report Share Posted July 14, 1998 -- >Hi again Kayleigh > >On 14 Jul 1998 19:01:07 -0000 Kayleigh > wrote: > >> > >> > Pete >> >> I am discussing this issue with you, not him, because I asked you, on the NLP list, what interest had brought you there. That was a real question, sparked by real interest on my part, since I have been told that academics usually frown on NLP as not being " scientically based. " >> >> As an afterthought, I tacked on the remark about AA discussion, which you then posted about on this list. So I responded. And you responded. And I responded. And you responded. >> >> And that is why I am discussing it with you. > >I dont have a problem with you discussing it with me - I >was wondering why you dont discuss it with him. The points >you made abt why debates arent a good idea are just as >appropriate to him. Rather more, in fact. > Pete, take it as a compliment that I discuss it with you rather than with him. Because it is my assumption -- and perhaps an erroneous one -- that he would not be capable of discussing it, and that you are. And that is a limitation in MY thinking. We have recently seen on arf12s that a couple people who seemed to be rabid groupers are really quite capable of believing that *A is not for everyone. And Rick has put me to shame by asking what there is in *A that DOES work, and how that can be put to good use in helping his clients. I think that no matter what our opinions of *A, none of us can say that there is NOTHING about it that works. I think the daily inventory is a good idea. It can be put in a different form: " What did I do that worked today? What did I do that didn't work? As to the things that didn't work, what could I do differently? " In any case, as I said, I won't engage in a debate with because nobody would change their mind and everybody would get pissed off. I pick my debates, I can't take up every one that comes my way. If I were to engage in debates, the topics that would interest me would make your eyes glaze over: " Will antitrust law be sufficient to govern public utilities as the gas, telephone and electric industries are deregulated? " And so forth. I will leave it to people with your kinds of goals to debate with the groupers. >As to why I'm interested in NLP, I've always had an >interest ever since I first heard of it. I'm also >interested in anything applied to addiction. I was under >the impression it had a scientific basis - certainly it >*sounds* like it does! > >There are whole areas of Psychology , especially >psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, that have quite > " unscientific " roots - I dont by any means discard them out >of hand, i believe many are valuable - though I am very >much for " firming up " claims by investigation. > >Pete I don't know a whole lot about it, but I believe it's probably true that the stuff that has evolved over the years in terms of treating clients probably has no basis in research. Carl , Fritz Perls, Freud himself -- don't know of any proven basis for any of their methods, and I assume they had some successes because they are famous. Again, that's your bailiwick, not mine. Kayleigh -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1998 Report Share Posted July 14, 1998 > > > Pete, take it as a compliment that I discuss it with you rather than with him. Because it is my assumption -- and perhaps an erroneous one -- that he would not be capable of discussing it, and that you are. And that is a limitation in MY thinking. << Thankyou - I hadnt thought if it that way, and I *dont* think it a limitation in your thinking. you highlighted one in mine. extreme groupers cant discuss these things. however, I wasnt discussing it for his benefit, i was doing it for other ppl on that list. also, i rather dislike being told to shut up and being patronized, so when someone tells me to shut up , i keep talking - so I did. clearly the guy is so AA saturated he can barely think in terms of anything else, which once again makes one wonder what he is doing on a non-AA forum, and it suggests he's just there to propogate AA and to police any alternatives. This is what is so sinister abt viral AA. It's like rabies, it produces a pathological fear of drinking and ferocious desire to savage other ppl and to pass on the infection. Psychological vampirism. " We have recently seen on arf12s that a couple people who seemed to be rabid groupers are really quite capable of believing that *A is not for everyone. " On their better moments perhaps. but why settle for their crumbs of compromise? I am not asking anything other than what you guys call your First Amendment rights - my right to say what I wish. i'm not advocating white supremacy or anything, i'm just asking for right of fair comment. " And Rick has put me to shame by asking what there is in *A that DOES work, and how that can be put to good use in helping his clients. > > I think that no matter what our opinions of *A, none of us can say that there is NOTHING about it that works. " I dont agree. I do think it may have some positive aspects,but it's perfectly possible thst the negative aspects might outweight it to the point where overall its a negative and should be avoided completely. Ken, Chaz Bufe and Stanton Peele have all showed evidence that AA might hurt ppl more than it helps. As it happens, I have expressed supportive beliefs abt AA, both the fellowship and the program. But i'll talk abt that when i want to talk abt that. if the groupers didnt go into doberman mode over anything they dont like, i'd talk abt it more often. recently i did so on addict-l (abt spiritual experiences and some i have had) and the psycho-grouper i referred to earlier asked me if he could talk with me abt it. i said yes. he never responded to that. instead i got the sarcastic shit i had from him tonight. Ive just clicked why - it was in response to the question " why do ppl sub to this list " ? that put him a quandary, because the truth is he's there as a policeman. he virtually admitted that to me when i first joined. he told me that the professionals who criticised AA did so because they wanted AA to fail so that ppl would use their treatment programs. that was why he argued with them. that was before he realized i was one of the enemy. being reminded of that hurt, so he lashed out at me. " I think the daily inventory is a good idea. It can be put in a different form: " What did I do that worked today? What did I do that didn't work? As to the things that didn't work, what could I do differently? " > > " Well that's fine - but that isnt what the literature says. It says a *moral* inventory, not a practical one. nearly everyone who finds something useful in the 12SP seems to reinterpret and bend it (often much more so than this) in a way its originators almost certainly never intended - certainly not what they wrote. you can do this, but that doesnt change the literature, that's still what gets read out at meetings and gets spouted about. Besides, you dont need to go to AA to get that. As it itself says in its literature, taking *practical* inventories are part of everyday life. By making it a *moral* inventory, you risk invoking guilt and self-recrimination, and that's exactly what cognitive therapy approaches say that one should *not* do. " In any case, as I said, I won't engage in a debate with because nobody would change their mind and everybody would get pissed off. " I didnt suggest you debate with , I asked you why you didnt suggest to him that debating with me was pointless, as you have suggested to me abt him - unless you think they I am sane enough to eventually shut up and he isnt? that's hardly fair - i'm being penalized for my reasonableness. now, it could be he's so incorrigible that he wouldnt take any notice, but you could give him a try. have you ever suggested to a grouper they stop debating because they will never change a skeptic's mind? a lot of my pissed off posts never make it to the send button - theyre written, and then closed unsaved. ive just cut a swathe out of this one which the better part realized was probably unnecessary. as time goes by, more and more get this fate or never get written at all. doubtless my response to our friend on nlp-a will be the same - but I gave him his chance to civilized debate, and he was entitled to that. " I don't know a whole lot about it, but I believe it's probably true that the stuff that has evolved over the years in terms of treating clients probably has no basis in research. Carl , Fritz Perls, Freud himself -- don't know of any proven basis for any of their methods, and I assume they had some successes because they are famous. " The research on Freud kills him stone dead. He was off his head on cocaine for most of the time he wrote his stuff. There may be some truth to his " Seduction Theory " - that adult hysteria and other problems are caused by sexual abuse. however, when ppl talk abt " Freud " they invariably mean the Oedipal theory, with which he rejected the Seduction Theory. The direct research ( of which there is little) looks pretty bad for , but there are indirect things that support him. I like him myself, even if he did say that Nixon was an example of a " self-actualized " person, before Watergate broke. Not familiar with Perls. btw, how *do* you spell your name? best, Pete ---------------------- Cool Briton PERSONALITY-DISORDERS LIST: http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders _____________________ " Every great scientist is part B.F. Skinner and part P.T. Barnum " - Bart Simpson's science teacher ---- Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/ To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@... To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@... -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.