Re: point counter-point <fwd>

October 29, 1999

This is from a post that appeared on APA Div 50. I will

later post my response to it on that forum, which I think

you might like to consider Apple for the aadeprogramming

site.

Pete

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---

======= Whilst the Big Book might be " psychological " (read " secular " )

it is also deeply spiritual/religious, making it truely " eclectic " . But,

for agnostic or atheistic listmembers, i would guess they don't have ears to

hear about the breadth of the eclecticism.

As I've argued elsewhere (see excerpts below), there are two groups called

Alcoholics Anonymous: group 1 is secular AA, and group 2 is

spiritual/religious AA. Please accept my apologies in advance for any

offense that is taken from what I've written below. My intent is to express

my opinion, not to upset anyone.

<snip>

I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers and clinicians

are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or tacit beliefs

that provide

the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of reality in the

human sciences

known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical positivism. As

a

consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions about

transcendent

dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise red flags of

suspicion and

distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia. So be it.

I believe there are two branches of Alcoholics Anonymous: Authentic AA and

Pseudo-AA. The spiritually (religiously) based 12-step program described in the

Big Book (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1976) of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) describes

authentic AA. As documented by AA historians Ernie Kurtz (1991, 1993), and

Dick B. (1997) recovering alcoholics who met at AA meetings in the 1940s

and 50s spent most of their time supporting each other in mutual attempts to

understand and practise the planned program of spiritual growth and

rediscovery embodied by the 12-steps. Unfortunately, 60 years

later, there is often quite a large schism between what happens in the

human fellowship component of AA on the one side (i.e., the meetings)

and the spiritual component (ie., 12-steps) on the other

side. Thus, in effect, there are currently two diverging branches of AA.

I have taken the liberty of labelling the first branch " authentic AA, " which

concerns itself primarily with using the planned program of recovery

(the 12-steps) as a vehicle for developing a relationship with a

God of ones understanding (or " Higher Power " ). In contrast, I refer to

the second branch as " pseudo AA, " because it concerns itself primarily

with fostering interpersonal relationships and human power. A suitable

synonym for this latter branch of AA might be secular AA.

Evidence there is a schism between these two branches is clearly visible

to anyone who any clean and sober recovering alcoholic who has attended a

reasonable number of AA meetings and who is involved in the planned

program of recovery embodied in the steps. Indeed, at least in the USA,

the schism has grown to such proportions thatspiritually and

religiously oriented AA members are increasingly banding together to

create an informal type of underground AA comprising of unofficial

home-based Big Book meetings centered on spiritual themes outlined

in the text Alcoholics Anonymous. Members of this secret

underground have not completely defected because they will often

attend official AA meetings in an effort to pass-on the core essential

message of AA, which is that human power alone (ie., " social support " )

is not an effective solution. Occasionally, these renegades will also

recruit people they meet at conventional AA meetings, usually AA

members whom they judge as showing a strong desire to grow in Spirit.

Given that their are really two AA programs, it is a misconception

to think that all, or even most, recovering alcoholics who attend AA

meetings sanctioned by Intergroup lists are necessarily concerned with

spiritual awakening through the 12-steps. Many, perhaps even

most AAs, are secular through and through. Obviously, the degree of

concern with achieving spiritual awakening differs for different individuals

and for groups in different geographic locations. This, however, does not

negate the observation that there are many agnostics and atheists

attending Intergroup sanctioned AA meetings: people whos chief

goal is to stay dry - on human power alone. Abstaining from alcohol

consumption is the overriding concern for this subgroup of secular AA

members, and they simply want nothing to do with God, Higher

Power or spiritual growth. By definition, these recovering alcoholics

do not adhere to the 12-step program of spiritual growth as documented

in conference approved AA literature.

It is possible that this failure to differentiate between authentic-AA

and pseudo-AA may have contributed to a widespread misconception

among university based alcohol researchers concerning the real purpose

of AA. Many scholars falsely believe that the outcome of prime

significance to the 12-steps of AA is physical sobriety. It is likely

that excessive concern with alcohol consumption as the primary outcome

of AA derives mostly from writings of agnostically-oriented Ph.D-level

researchers who naturally tend to dwell excessively upon pseudo (secular)

AA. This widespread neglect for non-drinking outcomes (eg.,

spiritual growth) appears to mirror the metatheoretical bias of this group

of investigators, a bias which favors philosophical materialism and logical

positivism. While physical abstinence is important, authentic AA

emphasizes the importance of achieving a deep and effective spiritual

experience that will revolutionize ones whole attitude toward life,

toward other people and toward Gods universe.

Thus, subscribers to this list should realize that one of the major

objectives for recovering alcoholics who practise the 12-steps is to

achieve a measure of spiritual awakening, which, according to the

Big Book, is considered the sufficient cause of both physical sobriety

and emotional sobriety. As expressed in the 12th step, emotional

sobriety is understood as consisting of the qualities of wisdom, joy

and altruism. These traits of character stand in stark contrast to the

dry drunk syndrome, in which the alcoholic is physically abstinent

from alcohol, but restless, irritable and discontented due to narcissistic

preoccupation with the selfish concerns.

October 29, 1999

Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively priceless!

This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since the first

time I saw " Duck Soup! "

Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

-- wally

PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing myself by

trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the Vienna

Circle " ... What do you think?

>...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers and

clinicians

>are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or tacit

beliefs that provide

> the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of reality in the

human sciences

>known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

positivism. As a

>consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions about

transcendent

>dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise red

flags of suspicion and

>distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia. So be

it....

October 30, 1999

wally--that's a lot of pee pee!

Pete-- thems a heap o'big words, could you mebbe put it in english for

us'n who ain't so

smart?

" wally t. " wrote:

original article: /group/12-step-free/?start=8934

> Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively

priceless!

>

> This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since the

first

> time I saw " Duck Soup! "

>

> Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

>

> -- wally

>

> PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

> PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing

myself by

> trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the

Vienna

> Circle " ... What do you think?

>

> >...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers and

> clinicians

> >are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or

tacit

> beliefs that provide

> > the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of reality

in the

> human sciences

> >known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

> positivism. As a

> >consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions

about

> transcendent

> >dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise

red

> flags of suspicion and

> >distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia.

So be

> it....

>

October 30, 1999

Hi Wally, folks

I'm pretty sure you know this already, but just in case you don't, that

wasn't a parody - it was written in sincerity by a member of APA Div50.

Pete

" wally t. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8934

> Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively

priceless!

>

> This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since the

first

> time I saw " Duck Soup! "

>

> Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

>

> -- wally

>

> PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

> PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing

myself by

> trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the

Vienna

> Circle " ... What do you think?

>

> >...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers and

> clinicians

> >are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or

tacit

> beliefs that provide

> > the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of reality

in the

> human sciences

> >known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

> positivism. As a

> >consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions

about

> transcendent

> >dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise

red

> flags of suspicion and

> >distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia.

So be

> it....

>

October 30, 1999

jackandj-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8944

> wally--that's a lot of pee pee!

> Pete-- thems a heap o'big words, could you mebbe put it in english for

> us'n who ain't so

> smart?

Well as I said to Wally, I'm not the author. What the guy is saying is

basically " The Philosophy of Science doesn't permit a spiritual

dimension to alcohol recovery. "

Pete

> " wally t. " wrote:

> original article: /group/12-step-free/?start=89

34

> > Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively

> priceless!

> >

> > This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since

the

> first

> > time I saw " Duck Soup! "

> >

> > Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

> >

> > -- wally

> >

> > PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

> > PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing

> myself by

> > trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the

> Vienna

> > Circle " ... What do you think?

> >

> > >...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers

and

> > clinicians

> > >are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or

> tacit

> > beliefs that provide

> > > the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of

reality

> in the

> > human sciences

> > >known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

> > positivism. As a

> > >consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions

> about

> > transcendent

> > >dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise

> red

> > flags of suspicion and

> > >distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia.

> So be

> > it....

> >

>

October 30, 1999

jackandj-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8944

> wally--that's a lot of pee pee!

> Pete-- thems a heap o'big words, could you mebbe put it in english for

> us'n who ain't so

> smart?

Well as I said to Wally, I'm not the author. What the guy is saying is

basically " The Philosophy of Science doesn't permit a spiritual

dimension to alcohol recovery. "

Pete

> " wally t. " wrote:

> original article: /group/12-step-free/?start=89

34

> > Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively

> priceless!

> >

> > This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since

the

> first

> > time I saw " Duck Soup! "

> >

> > Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

> >

> > -- wally

> >

> > PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

> > PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing

> myself by

> > trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the

> Vienna

> > Circle " ... What do you think?

> >

> > >...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers

and

> > clinicians

> > >are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or

> tacit

> > beliefs that provide

> > > the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of

reality

> in the

> > human sciences

> > >known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

> > positivism. As a

> > >consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions

> about

> > transcendent

> > >dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise

> red

> > flags of suspicion and

> > >distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia.

> So be

> > it....

> >

>

October 30, 1999

jackandj-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8944

> wally--that's a lot of pee pee!

> Pete-- thems a heap o'big words, could you mebbe put it in english for

> us'n who ain't so

> smart?

Well as I said to Wally, I'm not the author. What the guy is saying is

basically " The Philosophy of Science doesn't permit a spiritual

dimension to alcohol recovery. "

Pete

> " wally t. " wrote:

> original article: /group/12-step-free/?start=89

34

> > Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively

> priceless!

> >

> > This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since

the

> first

> > time I saw " Duck Soup! "

> >

> > Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

> >

> > -- wally

> >

> > PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

> > PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing

> myself by

> > trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the

> Vienna

> > Circle " ... What do you think?

> >

> > >...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers

and

> > clinicians

> > >are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or

> tacit

> > beliefs that provide

> > > the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of

reality

> in the

> > human sciences

> > >known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

> > positivism. As a

> > >consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions

> about

> > transcendent

> > >dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise

> red

> > flags of suspicion and

> > >distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia.

> So be

> > it....

> >

>

October 31, 1999

More from APA Div 50. My reply follows.

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---

I would invite Mr. Watts to ask an alcoholic who is recovering with the help

of Alcoholics Anonymous, and has been sober for five to ten years to explain

to him the difference between religiosity and spirituality in the practice

of the AA program. While he is at it, he might also inquire as to the

paradoxical nature of the First Step: that is, when admitting one is

powerless over alcohol, it makes one a stronger person and improves one's

self-efficacy. Yes, the following Steps Two and Three encourage one to

believe in a Higher Power and turn one's life over to him (or her, or Him or

Her, or it or It : one's Higher Power really IS a personal choice). My

personal vision of a Higher Power helps me to grow stronger (by staying

sober and developing a healthier personality (losing those " defects of

character " ). Certainly, as head of a household and substance abuse

counselor for ten years I have a much greater sense of self-efficacy than I

did in the mid to late 1970's as a chronic alcoholic and cocaine addict with

agoraphobia who only came out of his rat-infested unheated mobile home

($75/month, a real steal) to buy or sell drugs or replenish my supplies of

alcohol. As to my assertion that Alcoholics Anonymous uses RET: certainly

Dr. Ellis's theories are not mentioned specifically in the AA " Big Book " -

Ellis did not publish them until later. I never meant to imply that Bill

and Mr. Ellis were ideological soulmates. By all accounts, Ellis was

an irascible old bastard. But please Mr. Watts, take the time to explain

RET to that AA member: I think you will find he understands Ellis's

principles and utilizes them on a daily basis, though as he may not be as

" eddicated " you and so not know who Ellis is. Certainly Bill was a

very religious man but he knew all to well the dangers of religiosity.

Today, AA members I know, call it changing addictions: from alcohol to

religion. From what I have seen, both are about equally destructive.

You write that AA functions like a Rorschach test; maybe so. You read my

letter and saw a religious nut, whereas that other fellow described me as a

member of the " secular AA " which he and his secret society within AA itself

wish to overthrow with the power of their conection with the Godhead. Live

and let live. Some are sicker than others. I really hate to tell you all

this, Mr. Watts, but AA WORKS. It helps hopeless alcoholics get sober and

become productive citizens at a higher success rate than anything all the

APA researchers hve been able to come up with yet. While the great American

father of behavioral psychology was abusing babies, screwing his research

assistant, and developng the principles of the advertising business, Bill

was learning how to help himself and many, many others, to arrest a

terrible, fatal illness. No, I do not agree with all I hear at AA; there

are still some ignorant people who tell schizophrenics they do not need

their medication, just AA, but most of us know better and do a pretty good

job of heading off that kind of thing. " Take what you need and leave the

rest. "

October 31, 1999

My reply:

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---

> I would invite Mr. Watts to ask an alcoholic who is recovering with the help

> of Alcoholics Anonymous, and has been sober for five to ten years to explain

> to him the difference between religiosity and spirituality in the practice

> of the AA program.

I have heard the claimed difference explained ad

nauseum, including on this very list. The fact that the

claim exists however, does not mean it is legitimate. It

appears to hang on a misunderstanding of what the word

" religion " means - or at least what it used to mean until

it became politically incorrect. If one consults an

indifferent dictionary, it usually simply defines it as

" Belief in God " . Reading the 12 steps of AA, then it

indubitably meets this criterion. You can choose your own

God " as you understand Him " but it's still a God of some

kind or other. The definition is a poor one of course, as

some religions either don't have a God (e.g. Buddhism) or

are Pantheistic or Polytheistic and hence do not really fit

this mold. So, as a Social Scientist, I will turn to that

often used by Sociologists: essentially a belief in a

non-material being, power, or plane of existence. Again,

the AA philosophy imo clearly meets that definition.

It is worth noting that in modern times many ppl routinely

deny that they are religious when by all normal standards

they clearly are: nowadays it seems quite common for

self-proclaimed Christians to deny that they are religious.

I have even seen the Bible described as a non-religious

book. In a Sociology program by the UK Open University

called " What is Religion " Jews, Moslems, and Hindus

interviewed all denied their faith was a religion.

Rather like the phenomenon that Denial appears to be a

characteristic of addiction, it also appears to be a

characteristic of religiosity. I once joked on a

Psychology of Religion list that in the light of this the

fact that Scientologists campaigned to have Scientology

accepted as a religion is evidence that it is not, to the

annoyance of the listowner, who was one. I mollified her

with the assurance that the sociologist Wallace defined

Scientology as a kind of religion called " World-Affirming

Sect " - but withheld the fact these are sometimes also

referred to as " cults " .

I would say from Wallace's classification of new religions

that AA has characteristics of both Word-Affirming and

World-Accepting Sects , i.e. It is partly advocating a

life-enhacing philosophy like Scientology (World

Affirming), but lacks the commercial aspect typical of such

groups, and was derived from a revivalist Protestant sect

when it was part of the Oxford Group Movement (World

Accepting). The fact that it does not fit neatly into

either category completely does not detract from its

status a sect, as Wallace himself wrote that such religions

almost never fit exactly into one of his categories.

> While he is at it, he might also inquire as to the

> paradoxical nature of the First Step: that is, when admitting one is

> powerless over alcohol, it makes one a stronger person and improves one's

> self-efficacy.

Again, I am more than familiar with the Orwellian

doublethink " Powerlessness is Strength " which might have

graced the exterior of the Ministry of Truth in '1984', and

again, I don't buy it. It is often forgotten, not least by

AA members themselves in discussions such as this one, that

the powerlessness concept as described in the AA

literature does not refer to merely an inability to

drink moderately, but also an inability to remain

ABSTINENT. This point is hammered home time and time again

in the Big Book, and that " probably no human power could

relieve us of our alcohol obsession " . In other words,

medical assistance is futile, and also, merely belonging to

a self-help group, a " secular AA " is *also* futile since

this is strictly a human power as Ken Hart describes it:

" but God could, and would, if God were sought. " i.e. if

religious devotion is practiced.

> Yes, the following Steps Two and Three encourage one to

> believe in a Higher Power and turn one's life over to him (or her, or Him or

> Her, or it or It : one's Higher Power really IS a personal choice).

The phrase is " God was we understood Him " i.e. the very

word indicates a patriarchal, monotheistic God. Of

course, this is routinely softened for public

consumption as " Higher Power " but the basic text

remains unchanged.Perhaps a legitimate criticism of my

position is that the program is not so much a religion as

instructions to have a religion, including your own private

one if desired. Perhaps it could be called a

" meta-religion " - a religion abt religion. However, from

discussion with ppl calling themselves Christians, it is

clear that there is just the same variability of belief

within the traditional denominations, especially

Protestant. In the 80s there was a furore when the

Anglican Bishop of Durham mocked the notion of a Virgin

Birth and other traditional Christian miracles.

> My

> personal vision of a Higher Power helps me to grow stronger (by staying

> sober and developing a healthier personality (losing those " defects of

> character " ). Certainly, as head of a household and substance abuse

> counselor for ten years I have a much greater sense of self-efficacy than I

> did in the mid to late 1970's as a chronic alcoholic and cocaine addict with

> agoraphobia who only came out of his rat-infested unheated mobile home

> ($75/month, a real steal) to buy or sell drugs or replenish my supplies of

> alcohol.

I am sure you have made a great improvement in your life.

However, to the extent that attribute that to a power other

than yourself, I would say you *don't* have high

self-efficacy in a literal sense. There is a paradox here

of course, in that in all other respects other than the

religious belief, you probably do. My point is that you

seemed to have arrived at it by a very circuitous route. If

you had used a non-religious approach to your recovery, you

might have done even better perhaps.

> As to my assertion that Alcoholics Anonymous uses RET:

certainly

> Dr. Ellis's theories are not mentioned specifically in the AA " Big Book " -

> Ellis did not publish them until later. I never meant to imply that Bill

> and Mr. Ellis were ideological soulmates. By all accounts, Ellis was

> an irascible old bastard.

....And was a swindler and hypocritical womanizer.

Both his swindling and his womanizing are fairly well

accepted by AA's prior to his stopping drinking; what is

not acknowledged is that they seem to have continued after

he stopped. AA-commentator Chaz Bufe claims in his new

book to have evidence that from the records of early AA

that some of its money seems to have disappeared into

's pocket. As for his womanizing, this definitely

continued; apparently his wife Lois has written abt this,

but you wont find that book on the AA conference-approved

list. had a long-term affair with a woman in the

General Service Office, and left her money in his will, of

which there was eventually a great deal, from Big Book

royalties. In addition he actually suffered from severe

depression for some 15 years after he stopped drinking, and

said that the Steps were no help whatsoever in overcoming

it. All this would not matter much but what really sticks

in the craw is the hypocrisy of claiming that God had made

him " happy, joyous and free " , and that one ought to eschew

adultery as a 'defect of character' and finally, that he

wrote the chapter " To Wives " while *Pretending to be an

alcoholic's wife*, much to his own wife's understandable

fury. He said it was important the whole book was written

in the same style. But why then, did he not write as

*himself?* Why did he pretend to be the wife of an

alcoholic? This kind of deception I notice is an extremely

common technique in the propagation of 12-step programs ,

of which pretending it isn't religious is the most glaring.

I have seen a 12-step practitioner on a list refer someone

asking for help to *himself*, pretending he was a third

party. ...And all this from members of what is supposed to

be a program of 'rigorous honesty'!

> But please Mr. Watts, take the time to explain

> RET to that AA member: I think you will find he understands Ellis's

> principles and utilizes them on a daily basis, though as he may not be as

> " eddicated " you and so not know who Ellis is.

He, like you, might *claim* to, particularly if he thought

it would make me think more highly of AA. Where he would

be wrong, imo, is that program is concerned with " moral

inventories " - in other words, it is not abt getting rid of

*irrational* thoughts and behavior, like RET, but

supposedly " immoral " ones, and hence is NOT a similar thing

at all.

> Certainly Bill was a

> very religious man but he knew all to well the dangers of religiosity.

I'm not at all sure he did. What he learned was how

ineffective it was in bringing in recruits, especially in

cosmopolitan New York, unlike the much more fertile

Bible-belt earth of his partner in Akron. He was also aware

that the Catholic church might forbid its members to

participate in a non-Catholic religious organization, and

hence proceeded to bowdlerize its program, removing all

references to Jesus, sins, and confession, etc - those are

clearly what were being invoked by " God " , " Defects of

Character " , and " Admitted to God, ourselves and another

human being " . This also, of course, allows

self-declared atheists and agnostics to just abt come up

with some convoluted accommodation to it.

> Today, AA members I know, call it changing addictions: from alcohol to

> religion. From what I have seen, both are about equally destructive.

They miss that their program is itself a religion, and don't

appreciate how destructive *that* can be; the list

12-step-free has many members who can testify to this.

> You write that AA functions like a Rorschach test; maybe so.

Actually, a dedicated AA member wrote that. I merely

commented that the *AA program* appears to have functioned

like that in your case.

> You read my

> letter and saw a religious nut,

I did not say this. I saw a religious *person*.

> whereas that other fellow described me as a

> member of the " secular AA " which he and his secret society within AA itself

> wish to overthrow with the power of their connection with the Godhead. Live

> and let live. Some are sicker than others.

So, are you suggesting a practitioner of " authentic AA " -

that clearly intended by , and the good

old-timers - is showing a sign of *sickness*? What a radical

thought!

> I really hate to tell you all

> this, Mr. Watts, but AA WORKS.

I would hope you would have refrained from such petty

sarcasm. What you actually hate is that I don't

automatically accept this claim.

> It helps hopeless alcoholics get sober and

> become productive citizens at a higher success rate than anything all the

> APA researchers hve been able to come up with yet.

Could I have citations please? Because AA routinely refuses

to allow systematic investigation of it, there cannot

possibly be scientific justification for this claim. There

is however, some evidence it isn't true. Just one

example: By one of AA's own

triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

recover spontaneously. Stanton Peele is of course a much

better authority than me on such matters. When I used these

statistics from AA's survey on addict-l, an AA practitioner

said that he would report back to the AA literature

committee that the statistics were being " misrepresented "

and they should not be made generally available anymore;

and from one report this appears to have happened. Such is

the AA confidence in their program.

> While the great American

> father of behavioral psychology was abusing babies, screwing his research

> assistant, and developing the principles of the advertising business, Bill

> was learning how to help himself and many, many others, to arrest a

> terrible, fatal illness.

....While screwing the woman in the GSO, and apparently,

screwing the AA membership too (of their money).

> No, I do not agree with all I hear at AA; there

> are still some ignorant people who tell schizophrenics they do not need

> their medication, just AA, but most of us know better and do a pretty good

> job of heading off that kind of thing. " Take what you need and leave the

> rest. "

....And how is the person supposed to be able to tell the

difference? You seem to use this phrase as an excuse for

the fact that dangerous nonsense remains propogated

by AA without being addressed by it.

They also tell severely depressed non-schizophrenic ppl

that not only do they not need their antidepressants but

they are " alcohol in pill form " , that they can never take

benzodiazepines or painkillers, no matter how long sober,

and so on and so on. Relying on just a few ppl to happen

to be around to correct these myths is not good enough; and

in fact many AA clinicians *perpetuate* these myths. I

correspond with a former AA member who suffers chronic

pain. He asked his doctor for painkillers, who proceeded to

ask his [the doctor's] father, *because he was an AA

member* whether this was advisable for a recovered

alcoholic, who replied " No " and the prescription was

refused! My friend changed his doctor and is able to use

painkillers appropriately as would any other responsible

patient.

The only relevant AA literature, an obscure pamphlet

called, IIRC, " The AA member and Drugs " is essentially a

fudge document essentially allowing both those with pro-

and anti-med positions to draw on it in support of their

case, and appears to essentially function to shore up AA

unity. It also talks abt medicines and street drugs in the

same breath as if they are somehow comparable, which I

think is outrageous from physicians, as the authors

apparently are. AA/NA members often love to pretend that

there is really no difference between the two, usually

smugly, as if party to a great insight, while puffing on a

cigarette with one hand and swilling industrial strength

coffee with the other.

Methadone Maintenance Treatment is highly researched and

showed effective, and evidence for the efficacy of

Naltrexone for use with alcohol dependents as well as

opiate dependents is gaining fast - yet AA/NA members

frequently show open hostility to these treatments to the

great detriment of those who can benefit from them.

Watts

October 31, 1999

Hi Pete;

The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

plays fast and loose with statistics.

****************************************************************

example: By one of AA's own

triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

recover spontaneously.

*******************************************************************

In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be turned

into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

month in treatment.

Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a different

angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those recovering

were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

Basically that has happened in Iowa via Insurance companies, who

discovered that the same 300 to 500 people were keeping a 40 bed

treatment center in business. Insurance Companies deal in real

world stats to make money. I'd give a lease against next summers

wages to see their stats on 12 step treatment programs. I believe

AA admits that about 4% of alcoholics quit drinking after being

lectured by their family doctor. Hmmm. I can fully understand that

because my doctor got on me about my weight and I dumped 60

pounds over the next three years. He's the same doctor that

laughed at the idea I couldn't use pain relievers properly because

I'm an alcoholic. He's been right on both counts, I have no problem

with #4 tylenol and I feel better at this weight.

The few AA's, percentage wise who stay sober look like a large

number until you consider the 30 odd million that have come

through their doors in ten years or so and about a million sober at

any given time. I think if they burned all their books and traditions

and just had get togethers, the recovering rate would go up. The

power of a peer group is well documented and having a place to be,

with other non drinking people for a social structure, would IMO do

more good.

The twelve steps and present AA structure use three bad ideas.

Shame, fear and if one doesn't work take two or maybe 6 or 14. If

14 doesn't work, YOU are defective.

To abuse survivors already up to their asses in the twin alligators of

shame and fear, AA is like going home with no escape and as

alcoholics we are very familiar with, if one doesn't work take six,

because we've been doing that with alcohol and drugs.

Really I think the term " Drydrunk " applies to all who are working

the AA program and living it's way of life. It is after all, just the

same methods we used while drinking. That I believe is why AA's

can twist their belief system to fit all new or old pronouncements

from the GSO and folks like Clancy Imusland. Or as I used to hear

jibed at folks in prison " If you'll stand for that, you'll bend over for

this! "

Insurance companies here in Iowa will now pay for an inpatient

treatment, if you fail at outpatient and only if you satisfactorily

completed the outpatient. You get two outpatient and one inpatient

per lifetime.

Of course this policy put the centers out of business. I doubt now

that there are more than 6 centers in Iowa, that are not State

institutions. The disadvantage to State treatment is its' 6 month

length. Not too many folks ready to do six months in a veritable

jail. Few go twice, though some do each winter.

So here, for the most part, things are back to pre 1970. I did one

of those six months shots in 62-63 and wished I'd have gone to jail

instead. Though I admit I enjoyed the roller skating, Dances and

nine hole golf course. I stayed sober the first day after getting out.

Just long enough to find a place to live. I drank some while I was in

there, but that's another story.

So here in The Bible Belt as you called it, the 12 step star is

descending. Naturally with few treatments to send fresh blood to

AA, it is also dimishing. Next time I'm in Des Moines, I'll stop at

The Central Office and get a Des Moines meeting schedule, just to

see how many of the 3 or 400 are left from the eighties.

I was around AA for 30 years and as a treatment, IMO, it is a

failure. Personally I didn't stay off alcohol till I got away and stayed

away from AA, in 1990.

October 31, 1999

Hi Pete;

The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

plays fast and loose with statistics.

****************************************************************

example: By one of AA's own

triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

recover spontaneously.

*******************************************************************

In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be turned

into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

month in treatment.

Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a different

angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those recovering

were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

Basically that has happened in Iowa via Insurance companies, who

discovered that the same 300 to 500 people were keeping a 40 bed

treatment center in business. Insurance Companies deal in real

world stats to make money. I'd give a lease against next summers

wages to see their stats on 12 step treatment programs. I believe

AA admits that about 4% of alcoholics quit drinking after being

lectured by their family doctor. Hmmm. I can fully understand that

because my doctor got on me about my weight and I dumped 60

pounds over the next three years. He's the same doctor that

laughed at the idea I couldn't use pain relievers properly because

I'm an alcoholic. He's been right on both counts, I have no problem

with #4 tylenol and I feel better at this weight.

The few AA's, percentage wise who stay sober look like a large

number until you consider the 30 odd million that have come

through their doors in ten years or so and about a million sober at

any given time. I think if they burned all their books and traditions

and just had get togethers, the recovering rate would go up. The

power of a peer group is well documented and having a place to be,

with other non drinking people for a social structure, would IMO do

more good.

The twelve steps and present AA structure use three bad ideas.

Shame, fear and if one doesn't work take two or maybe 6 or 14. If

14 doesn't work, YOU are defective.

To abuse survivors already up to their asses in the twin alligators of

shame and fear, AA is like going home with no escape and as

alcoholics we are very familiar with, if one doesn't work take six,

because we've been doing that with alcohol and drugs.

Really I think the term " Drydrunk " applies to all who are working

the AA program and living it's way of life. It is after all, just the

same methods we used while drinking. That I believe is why AA's

can twist their belief system to fit all new or old pronouncements

from the GSO and folks like Clancy Imusland. Or as I used to hear

jibed at folks in prison " If you'll stand for that, you'll bend over for

this! "

Insurance companies here in Iowa will now pay for an inpatient

treatment, if you fail at outpatient and only if you satisfactorily

completed the outpatient. You get two outpatient and one inpatient

per lifetime.

Of course this policy put the centers out of business. I doubt now

that there are more than 6 centers in Iowa, that are not State

institutions. The disadvantage to State treatment is its' 6 month

length. Not too many folks ready to do six months in a veritable

jail. Few go twice, though some do each winter.

So here, for the most part, things are back to pre 1970. I did one

of those six months shots in 62-63 and wished I'd have gone to jail

instead. Though I admit I enjoyed the roller skating, Dances and

nine hole golf course. I stayed sober the first day after getting out.

Just long enough to find a place to live. I drank some while I was in

there, but that's another story.

So here in The Bible Belt as you called it, the 12 step star is

descending. Naturally with few treatments to send fresh blood to

AA, it is also dimishing. Next time I'm in Des Moines, I'll stop at

The Central Office and get a Des Moines meeting schedule, just to

see how many of the 3 or 400 are left from the eighties.

I was around AA for 30 years and as a treatment, IMO, it is a

failure. Personally I didn't stay off alcohol till I got away and stayed

away from AA, in 1990.

October 31, 1999

Hi , The treatment surveys are so flawed it's pitiful. As a graduate

of many programs here is how I answered the surveys. If I was drinking which

I always was within 30 days of treatment I would either lie and say I was

sober or I would not respond. Since non-responders never are counted you can

see how useless these statistics are.

Artie

n a message dated 10/31/99 10:27:09 AM Central Standard Time,

pachy2@... writes:

> Hi Pete;

>

> The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

> plays fast and loose with statistics.

>

> ****************************************************************

> example: By one of AA's own

> triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> recover spontaneously.

> *******************************************************************

>

> In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

> old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

> therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

>

> About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

> low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

> years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

> hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

> against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

> copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

> affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be turned

> into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

> 37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

> month in treatment.

>

> Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

> that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

> unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

> who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

> a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

>

> However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a different

> angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

> year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

> medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

> I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those recovering

> were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

>

October 31, 1999

Hi , The treatment surveys are so flawed it's pitiful. As a graduate

of many programs here is how I answered the surveys. If I was drinking which

I always was within 30 days of treatment I would either lie and say I was

sober or I would not respond. Since non-responders never are counted you can

see how useless these statistics are.

Artie

n a message dated 10/31/99 10:27:09 AM Central Standard Time,

pachy2@... writes:

> Hi Pete;

>

> The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

> plays fast and loose with statistics.

>

> ****************************************************************

> example: By one of AA's own

> triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> recover spontaneously.

> *******************************************************************

>

> In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

> old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

> therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

>

> About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

> low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

> years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

> hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

> against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

> copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

> affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be turned

> into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

> 37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

> month in treatment.

>

> Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

> that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

> unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

> who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

> a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

>

> However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a different

> angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

> year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

> medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

> I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those recovering

> were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

>

October 31, 1999

Hi , The treatment surveys are so flawed it's pitiful. As a graduate

of many programs here is how I answered the surveys. If I was drinking which

I always was within 30 days of treatment I would either lie and say I was

sober or I would not respond. Since non-responders never are counted you can

see how useless these statistics are.

Artie

n a message dated 10/31/99 10:27:09 AM Central Standard Time,

pachy2@... writes:

> Hi Pete;

>

> The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

> plays fast and loose with statistics.

>

> ****************************************************************

> example: By one of AA's own

> triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> recover spontaneously.

> *******************************************************************

>

> In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

> old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

> therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

>

> About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

> low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

> years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

> hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

> against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

> copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

> affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be turned

> into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

> 37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

> month in treatment.

>

> Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

> that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

> unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

> who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

> a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

>

> However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a different

> angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

> year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

> medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

> I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those recovering

> were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

>

October 31, 1999

-----Original Message-----

>Hi Wally, folks

>

>I'm pretty sure you know this already, but just in case you don't, that

>wasn't a parody - it was written in sincerity by a member of APA Div50.

>

>Pete

Yes, Pete, I was joshing -- I knew you didn't really write it yourself ;-)

HOWEVER... I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the author is sincere.

Could be he's spoofing. He's SO off the wall. Aside from the philosophical

malapropisms, it's a simple fact that his description of the " 2 AAs " is

nothing like the reality. Everybody who goes to AA for more than a year or

two winds up working the steps. It really IS a spiritual program, and

EVERYBODY knows this except for the newcomers and outsiders who may get the

IMPRESSION at first that there is a " secular AA. " People don't have to join

secret Big Book groups to work the Steps. They can go to any of zillions of

step meetings, most of which use the 12 & 12, some of which use the BB... 99

out of 100 sponsors will tell you to work the steps and get really peeved if

you make no effort to do so.

He might as well be claiming that ( " contrary to poular belief " ) there's more

to Catholicism than Bingo, and making his case by pointing to some obscure

sect of Spanish monks as The Real Catholic Church!

And you're going to debate this nutcase/clown?

good luck,

wally

>

> " wally t. " wrote:

>original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8934

>> Pete, your parodies of pompous pseudo-profundity are positively

>priceless!

>>

>> This one had me howling. I don't think I've laughed so hard since the

>first

>> time I saw " Duck Soup! "

>>

>> Please keep it up! More, more, I'm still not satisfied...

>>

>> -- wally

>>

>> PS: Are you going to give this character a name?

>> PPS: Maybe you could have him " write a book. " I've been amusing

>myself by

>> trying to think up titles... Like maybe " The Public Square and the

>Vienna

>> Circle " ... What do you think?

>>

>> >...I appreciate that most academically-based alcohol researchers and

>> clinicians

>> >are very deeply committed to the pre-theoretical assumptions or

>tacit

>> beliefs that provide

>> > the invisible faith foundation for the reigning paradigm of reality

>in the

>> human sciences

>> >known by some as philosophical materialism and others as logical

>> positivism. As a

>> >consequence of these metatheoretical presuppositions, discussions

>about

>> transcendent

>> >dimensions of reality, religiosity and spirituality instantly raise

>red

>> flags of suspicion and

>> >distrust among many alcohol researchers embedded within academia.

>So be

>> it....

>>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Essential Feynman Library for $7.99! A $96.65

>value of 3 books+6 audio tape set. Learn

>physics from Feynman renown for making

>complex ideas easy. Order NOW at Library

>of Science http://clickhere./click/1370

>

>eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

> - Simplifying group communications

>

October 31, 1999