Re: about Rational Recovery

[Guest guest]

--- Bjørn wrote:

> OK.

>

> But let's take it from scratch.

>

> I'll respond more thoroughly if you say that there

> is more to AVRT than an ingenious cognitive

> technique.

>

> If you agree with me that AVRT is nothing but a

> cognitive tool, I'll try to explain why I think it

> works.

>

> If you think there is more to it, you'll have to

> explain it to me.

>

> Fair deal, don't you think?

>

> Bjørn

It's a deal.

I agree that AVRT is nothing more nor less than a

cognitive technique. I'll reserve judgment on the

ingenuity of it's creators since it's probably been

around a long time. It works for me and for many

others. It's probably adaptable to any ideology,

theology, or philosophy in which free will is highly

valued.

> P.S.

>

> I have some experience with people telling " I'm not

> an academic, but in my experience....... " Don't

> disappoint me with being one of those.

Since I don't hang around many people who preface

their comments the way I did, I'm not exactly sure who

you are referring to nor why this would disappoint

you. However, it's probably better to just let my

comments fly without caveats and let the chips fall

where they will.

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- Lomas wrote:

> Hi Rita & all,

>

> You said:

>

> " The problem is, Trimpey does not allow RR to simply

> be an

> organization that promotes AVRT or do-it-yourself

> recovery in general

> -- RR's " raison d'etre " is to politicize " recovery "

> issues and to be

> a platform for Trimpey's personal rants and

> pseudo-scientific

> babbling. "

I think it's as easy to separate AVRT from RR's

political agenda as it is to isolate the " Addictive

Voice " with AVRT practice. Again, one doesn't have to

like Trimpey's politics to use AVRT, or whatever you

want to call it. To reject the technique merely

because of it's association is like throwing the baby

out with the bathwater.

To

> I'll take your word for that. Considering myself as

> just one example

> of someone encountering RR though ... I went to the

> website, skimmed

> through various parts getting the flavor, but soon

> went to the AVRT

> crash course, and that's the only thing I came away

> with. In fact I

> got the distinct impression from the web site that I

> should absorb

> AVRT and then go away.

That seems to be the basic idea, unless you want to

help further Trimpey's causes. But this isn't a

prerequisite to using it.

> With AVRT being such common sense, and being based

> on known

> psychotherapy techniques, it's too bad *anyone*

> needs to " own " it. It

> ought to be generically made public domain. If

> Trimpey's buzzwords

> were removed, could that be done? I wonder.

>

>

I think it is out in the public domain. It has been

probably as long as we've been smart enough to

understand it. Along with his aggressive reformist

efforts, Trimpey is also an aggressive entrepeneur. He

has taken a risk and chosen to make this his living.

Time will tell if he makes a consistent profit, or

not.

Towards that end, his copyright protects his " product "

from being claimed by other entities; like SMART

apparently tried to do in the early 90s. But I'll bet

that long after Trimpey and his business are gone,

AVRT will still be around in one form or another.

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- Bjørn wrote:

> OK.

>

> But let's take it from scratch.

>

> I'll respond more thoroughly if you say that there

> is more to AVRT than an ingenious cognitive

> technique.

>

> If you agree with me that AVRT is nothing but a

> cognitive tool, I'll try to explain why I think it

> works.

>

> If you think there is more to it, you'll have to

> explain it to me.

>

> Fair deal, don't you think?

>

> Bjørn

It's a deal.

I agree that AVRT is nothing more nor less than a

cognitive technique. It works for me and many other

people. I'll reserve judgment on the ingenuity of it's

creators since it's probably impossible to identify

who they are (Jack merely put a name to it to make a

profit and further his other causes). AVRT is probably

adaptable to any ideology, theology, or philosophy

where free-will is highly prized.

> P.S.

>

> I have some experience with people telling " I'm not

> an academic, but in my experience....... " Don't

> disappoint me with being one of those.

Since I don't hang around many people who preface

their comments the way I did, I not sure to whom you

are referring nor why they would disappoint you.

However, it's probably better to let my comments fly

without caveats and let them fall where they may.

Ron

> Re: Re: about Rational

> Recovery

>

>

> > Hi Bjorn:

> >

> > I'm not but I hope you won't mind if I

> respond

> > to your post. I enjoy reading them because I'm new

> to

> > this field. I'm not an academician so please

> excuse

> > whatever ignorance may come through.

> >

> > > Your explanations doesn't hold water, and

> personally

> > > I despise pseudo scientism (J.T.), especially

> when

> > > combined with anti-intellectualism. For some it

> > > might not to be important as long as it works,

> but

> > > I'm not constructed that way. I'm interested in

> > > understanding WHY it works.

> > >

> > > Every skilled cognitive therapist would

> immediately

> > > recognize AVRT as a powerful and useful

> cognitive

> > > technique, where the primary focus always is

> what's

> > > going on into the client's head.

> > > But in cognitive therapy there is complete

> agreement

> > > between the therapist and the client about

> what's

> > > going on, a concept called psychoeducation.

> > >

> > > But Jack denies AVRT to be a technique in order

> to

> > > (but not solely) strengthen it's effects, which

> is

> > > fraud.

> >

> > As one who uses AVRT, I've found over time that

> it's

> > easier to recognize the " addictive voice " of which

> > Trimpey teaches. The AV thus diminishes in potency

> as

> > AVRT is practiced. Is this not a " strengthening of

> > it's effect's " ?

> > > He also denies that he owns anything to

> cognitive

> > > therapy by claiming that he discovered his AVRT

> when

> > > he interviewed people who had stopped drinking.

> This

> > > is an exploration technique used in cognitive

> > > therapy. Then he found everybody said NO in one

> way

> > > or another. Big deal!

> >

> > From what I've read, he's never claimed to have

> > discovered AVRT. He states in several places that

> it's

> > as " old as the hills " . He just created a name for

> it

> > that was copyrighted to protect among other

> things,

> > his business interests.

> >

> > > Then his description of the Beast. The Beast is

> the

> > > one tempting Jesus in the desert, a part of the

> > > midbrain and the cause of empires to vanish.

> >

> > Whether addiction is a major cause of vanishing

> > empires or not is questionable (I doubt it). I

> don't

> > see the comparison to the theological metaphor, or

> > even if this is relevant? Is not a rose by any

> other

> > name still a rose?

> >

> > > I can imagine people in great need can buy into

> > > this, but how will they react when they come to

> > > their senses.

> >

> > Even people, like me, who disagree with other

> areas of

> > Trimpey's thinking are amazed by just how sensible

> > this technique is.

> >

> > > How would he explain his theory to a

> > > neuropsychologist?

> >

> > By the same token, how would a neuropsychologist

> > explain addiction to an addict?

> >

> > > On the general level the human brain is human,

> even

> > > though we may have some structures resembling

> lower

> > > animals like reptiles.

> > >

> > > As the Russian neuropsychologist A.R. Luria

> > > convincingly has demonstrated through the study

> of

> > > thousands of head injuries during W.W.II, all

> parts

> > > of the brain are working together, and an injury

> in

> > > one part will affect functions in the rest of

> the

> > > brain.

> > > His theory also permits rehabilitation of brain

> > > injuries in quite another extent than theories

> > > claiming that certain mental functions can be

> > > located to specific parts of the brain.

> > >

> > > If you can't see that both AVRT and REBT is

> poured

> > > from the same well, I'm unable to help you. To

> me

> > > it's obvious, but your difficulty might stem

> from

> >

> > Don't really know enough about REBT to comment on

> > this.

> >

> > > Metaphors are powerful instruments, and can be

> > > abused as well as used in a honest way. If

> abused

> >

> > I fail to see a deception here. Trimpey makes no

> bones

> > about the way he labels his concepts. Where is the

> > dishonesty?

> >

> > Personally I would have much more faith in Jack

> > > Trimpey if he admitted his debt to psychology

> > > instead of attacking everybody he owes. The next

> > > thing will possibly be that he claims he has

> > > invented himself. A truly self-made man.

> >

> > ly, I don't care as much about to whom or

> what

> > Jack gives thanks for his principles. I just find

> AVRT

> > to be an effective tool; just like this forum is

> an

> > effective tool regardless of all the personality

> > differences among the participants.

> >

> > About the fate for AVRT I think it will live and

> die

> > > with the man himself, and with his stress on

> > > fundamental American religious, puritan values

> he

> > > will have little if no impact outside the

> > > Anglo-Saxon part of the world.

> >

> > I hope AVRT by ANY by any name will thrive,

> regardless

> > of of political or religious ideology. (BTW I am

> leery

> > of the Puritan ethic and how it came to pass)The

> > principle is more important than the person, IMO.

> >

> > > If you read Mc and Edgerton: " Drunken

> > > Comportment " , 1967, you will from pure inference

> be

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi .

The Big Plan and The Structural Model of Addiction are fully integrated into AVRT.......

First I would like to excuse for the last words in my reply.

Then thanks for your answer. My next attack will be on The Structural Model of Addiction.

But not today.

The problem, of course, is that if AVRT is nothing but a cognitive technique, then JT is a fraud. He will be nothing but another cognitive therapist (of about 50.000) that just might be somewhat more creative than most.

Till later

Bjørn

P.S.

Don't let your AV talk you into Iranian pistaches, they are infected by mushrom poison.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: about Rational Recovery

Hi .

Bjørn

P.S.

Don't let your AV talk you into Iranian pistaches, they are infected by mushrom poison.

Uh, Oh. (:-()) What are the symptoms?

DT

[Guest guest]

Symptoms?

You're throat will swell, and you can't breath, but you'll die with an itching sensation. Just enjoy.

As Dr. Hook sings in "Freaking at the Freakers Ball", "I'm gonna scratch me where it itches". You're AV will be screaming of horror and despair.

Bjørn

Re: Re: about Rational Recovery

Hi .

Bjørn

P.S.

Don't let your AV talk you into Iranian pistaches, they are infected by mushrom poison.

Uh, Oh. (:-()) What are the symptoms?

DT

[Guest guest]

At 09:16 PM 6/8/01 +0200, you wrote:

>The problem, of course, is that if AVRT is nothing but a cognitive

>technique, then JT is a fraud. He will be nothing but another cognitive

>therapist (of about 50.000) that just might be somewhat more creative than

>most.

I don't think he's a therapist at all. He just puts his ideas out there,

and they

seem to work for a lot of people.

I don't know of any other therapist or non-therapist who promotes the same

ideas, so he's hardly one of a large crowd. SMART does have its " Salesman "

knockoff of the Beast concept, but it's not emphasized.

How does it make JT a fraud to consider AVRT as a cognitive technique?

[Guest guest]

Why it makes him a fraud?

Short question, long answer.

Later. The sheer thought exhausts me.

But so far I can reveal that it is connected with his 'Structural Model of Addiction', which I'll send to a neuropsychologist I know.

My problem is that I'll have to establish/construct a logical structured answer to explain my view, and I'm not in the mood for that just now.

Wait for me, .

Bjørn

Re: Re: about Rational Recovery

At 09:16 PM 6/8/01 +0200, you wrote:>The problem, of course, is that if AVRT is nothing but a cognitive >technique, then JT is a fraud. He will be nothing but another cognitive >therapist (of about 50.000) that just might be somewhat more creative than >most.I don't think he's a therapist at all. He just puts his ideas out there, and theyseem to work for a lot of people.I don't know of any other therapist or non-therapist who promotes the sameideas, so he's hardly one of a large crowd. SMART does have its "Salesman"knockoff of the Beast concept, but it's not emphasized.How does it make JT a fraud to consider AVRT as a cognitive technique?

[Guest guest]

Hi , I forgot this one.

As for those people who believe maintaining a chemical dependency is right for them, RR does not go so far as to say they are intrinsically irrational. RR has moved AWAY from rebt/cognitive intrinsic rationality and ABCing beliefs to see if they they are 'ill' beliefs, and instead acknowledges chemical dependency as a personal liberty. How can I determine that terrible, horrible, awful, should, shouldn't, etc are intrinsically 'unhealthy' words for everyone? Who am I to impose these values on someone who just wants to end a chemical dependency?

Could we agree on, that chemical dependency is equal to addiction without shame?

Bjørn

[Guest guest]

For once.

JT denounce and despise cognitive therapy.

Bjørn

P.S.

Which he only can justify with his "Reptile Structural Model of Addiction".

Re: Re: about Rational Recovery

At 09:16 PM 6/8/01 +0200, you wrote:>The problem, of course, is that if AVRT is nothing but a cognitive >technique, then JT is a fraud. He will be nothing but another cognitive >therapist (of about 50.000) that just might be somewhat more creative than >most.I don't think he's a therapist at all. He just puts his ideas out there, and theyseem to work for a lot of people.I don't know of any other therapist or non-therapist who promotes the sameideas, so he's hardly one of a large crowd. SMART does have its "Salesman"knockoff of the Beast concept, but it's not emphasized.How does it make JT a fraud to consider AVRT as a cognitive technique?

[Guest guest]

>

> I don't think he's a therapist at all. He just puts his ideas out there,

> and they

> seem to work for a lot of people.

>

> I don't know of any other therapist or non-therapist who promotes the same

> ideas, so he's hardly one of a large crowd. SMART does have its " Salesman "

> knockoff of the Beast concept, but it's not emphasized.

>

> How does it make JT a fraud to consider AVRT as a cognitive technique?

>

-----------------

Because he states repeatedly that AVRT has nothing to do with any therapy

technique of any kind, and in fact he slams therapists who suggest that

counseling and therapy can help people overcome addictions.

SMART split from RR largely because many people in RR wanted to not only

keep the REBT in RR that used to be there, but expand upon it. Trimpey had a

hissy fit about linking RR with therapy (thereby suggesting that maybe his ideas

aren't so original as to merit trademarks and profiteering), and so SMART was

formed.

Trimpey is a licensed clinical social worker who once upon a time did do

cognitive therapy for depression, anxiety, and related issues. I guess he's

retired from the field now.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> Trimpey is a licensed clinical social worker who once upon a

time did do cognitive therapy for depression, anxiety, and related

issues. I guess he's retired from the field now.

Is he still licensed? IIRC Jim Shirk stated that Trimpey went the RR

route after he was stopped from doing his usual thing.

P.

[Guest guest]

> > Trimpey is a licensed clinical social worker who once

upon a

> time did do cognitive therapy for depression, anxiety, and

related

> issues.

This may seem like a dumb question, but can someone point

out the basic difference between cognitive therapy and REBT? It

seems to me that the methodology is the same.

AVRT, does seem very similar to cognitive therapy or REBT, but

the " beast " is not portrayed as a cognitive distortion, but as a

seperate entity. This I see as differing from REBT in that a

seperate entity within, does not make us personally responsible

for our decisions. Sounds too much like the " disease " for my

taste, also the dualistic nature of Trimpey and RR smells a little

too xtian.

Devin

[Guest guest]

Hello Devin

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a catch-all term that subsumes

REBT and other approaches that address thinking and behavior rather

than psychodynamics. AVRT can hence be considered a form of cognitive

therapy. The notion of the " beast " is undoubtedly imo the most

distinctive aspect of AVRT.

P.

> This may seem like a dumb question, but can someone point

> out the basic difference between cognitive therapy and REBT? It

> seems to me that the methodology is the same.

>

> AVRT, does seem very similar to cognitive therapy or REBT, but

> the " beast " is not portrayed as a cognitive distortion, but as a

> seperate entity. This I see as differing from REBT in that a

> seperate entity within, does not make us personally responsible

> for our decisions. Sounds too much like the " disease " for my

> taste, also the dualistic nature of Trimpey and RR smells a little

> too xtian.

>

> Devin

[Guest guest]

At 11:51 PM 6/8/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Because he states repeatedly that AVRT has nothing to do with any

> therapy technique of any kind, and in fact he slams therapists who

> suggest that counseling and therapy can help people overcome addictions.

He has some pretty weird things to say about therapists. He has

suggested -- well, accused, actually -- that therapists are only interested

in luring clients from abstinence programs in order to sell them on

the Holy Grail of moderate drinking.

I still think it's a little unfair to call him a fraud. I think it's quite

possible that he actually believes what he says.

It would be nice if he could chill out a bit and just promote AVRT

without all the aggressive bashing.

> SMART split from RR largely because many people in RR wanted to not

> only keep the REBT in RR that used to be there, but expand upon

> it. Trimpey had a hissy fit about linking RR with therapy (thereby

> suggesting that maybe his ideas aren't so original as to merit trademarks

> and profiteering), and so SMART was formed.

Yes, I know about the split. I was in SMART for about a year.

JT and SMART tell the story rather differently, of course. :-) SMART

tends to come off as more credible, since Trimpey has made a public

jackass of himself on more than one occasion.

> Trimpey is a licensed clinical social worker who once upon a time

> did do cognitive therapy for depression, anxiety, and related issues. I

> guess he's retired from the field now.

I would guess he would have to be. He seems to spend most of his

time on RR now.

[Guest guest]

I wonder if Bjorn has read through Trimpey's material

with care?

Trimpey is an LCSW but he doesn't invoke his

credentials when he sells AVRT; emphasis on the word

SELLS. He often points out that AVRT is not therapy at

all. It is an educational tool that he sells as his

main product in his small business venture, which he

labels Rational Recovery, Inc. Part of the profit he

makes from this venture is used to perpetuate social

activism in addiction issues.

I fail to see any fraud here. Or, perhaps Bjorn I am

misubderstanding your definition of the word " fraud " .

Ron

--- Bjørn wrote:

> Why it makes him a fraud?

>

> Short question, long answer.

>

> Later. The sheer thought exhausts me.

>

> But so far I can reveal that it is connected with

> his 'Structural Model of Addiction', which I'll send

> to a neuropsychologist I know.

>

> My problem is that I'll have to establish/construct

> a logical structured answer to explain my view, and

> I'm not in the mood for that just now.

>

> Wait for me, .

>

> Bjørn

> Re: Re: about Rational

> Recovery

>

>

> At 09:16 PM 6/8/01 +0200, you wrote:

> >The problem, of course, is that if AVRT is

> nothing but a cognitive

> >technique, then JT is a fraud. He will be nothing

> but another cognitive

> >therapist (of about 50.000) that just might be

> somewhat more creative than

> >most.

>

> I don't think he's a therapist at all. He just

> puts his ideas out there,

> and they

> seem to work for a lot of people.

>

> I don't know of any other therapist or

> non-therapist who promotes the same

> ideas, so he's hardly one of a large crowd. SMART

> does have its " Salesman "

> knockoff of the Beast concept, but it's not

> emphasized.

>

> How does it make JT a fraud to consider AVRT as a

> cognitive technique?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Is he still licensed?

Yes, he is still licensed.

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

:

How does SMART explain the split with RR? I know

Trimpey's side already but I'd like to get another

perspective if I may?

Ron

--- wrote:

> At 11:51 PM 6/8/01 +0000, you wrote:

> > Because he states repeatedly that AVRT has

> nothing to do with any

> > therapy technique of any kind, and in fact he

> slams therapists who

> > suggest that counseling and therapy can help

> people overcome addictions.

>

> He has some pretty weird things to say about

> therapists. He has

> suggested -- well, accused, actually -- that

> therapists are only interested

> in luring clients from abstinence programs in order

> to sell them on

> the Holy Grail of moderate drinking.

>

> I still think it's a little unfair to call him a

> fraud. I think it's quite

> possible that he actually believes what he says.

>

> It would be nice if he could chill out a bit and

> just promote AVRT

> without all the aggressive bashing.

>

>

> > SMART split from RR largely because many

> people in RR wanted to not

> > only keep the REBT in RR that used to be there,

> but expand upon

> > it. Trimpey had a hissy fit about linking RR with

> therapy (thereby

> > suggesting that maybe his ideas aren't so original

> as to merit trademarks

> > and profiteering), and so SMART was formed.

>

> Yes, I know about the split. I was in SMART for

> about a year.

>

> JT and SMART tell the story rather differently, of

> course. :-) SMART

> tends to come off as more credible, since Trimpey

> has made a public

> jackass of himself on more than one occasion.

>

> > Trimpey is a licensed clinical social worker

> who once upon a time

> > did do cognitive therapy for depression, anxiety,

> and related issues. I

> > guess he's retired from the field now.

>

> I would guess he would have to be. He seems to

> spend most of his

> time on RR now.

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

At 10:39 PM 6/8/01 -0700, you wrote:

>:

>

>How does SMART explain the split with RR? I know

>Trimpey's side already but I'd like to get another

>perspective if I may?

The people who set up SMART were the board of directors of the

old RR. When Trimpey wanted to change RR drastically (ditching

the REBT, eliminating meetings, etc), the board of directors

wanted to continue with what in their view was already helping

a lot of people. So they split -- Trimpey kept the name but

changed the program, the others kept the program but of

course had to change the name.

SMART is very much like the old RR. It has meetings, does ABC

exercises, and so forth. It still recommends Trimpey's _The_Small_

_Book_ as suggested reading, although Trimpey himself has

repudiated that.

Check out

http://www.smartrecovery.org/smart.htm

if you're interested in more information on them.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: about Rational Recovery

At 10:39 PM 6/8/01 -0700, you wrote:>:>>How does SMART explain the split with RR? I know>Trimpey's side already but I'd like to get another>perspective if I may?The people who set up SMART were the board of directors of theold RR.

[ They were only *some* of the Board. ]

When Trimpey wanted to change RR drastically (ditchingthe REBT, eliminating meetings, etc),

[ Trimpey had methodically, and unsuprisingly moved away from REBT by the middle of 1994. We did not cancel the Recovery Group Movement until 1999 five years later. ]

the board of directorswanted to continue with what in their view was already helpinga lot of people.

[ Trimpey had empirically discovered it was AVRT that gave the real traction to people wanting to quit. In hindsight, the split was inevitable. How it happened was high nonprofit corporate drama. I believe Jack Trimpey was extremely tolerant and did nothing dishonest or unethical during that drama. ]

So they split -- Trimpey kept the name butchanged the program, the others kept the program but ofcourse had to change the name.

[ An excellent view into that year of Recovery Program history is the series of debates between Ellis and Trimpey in three consecutive Journals of Rational Recovery during 1994.]SMART is very much like the old RR. It has meetings, does ABCexercises, and so forth. It still recommends Trimpey's _The_Small__Book_ as suggested reading, although Trimpey himself hasrepudiated that.Check outhttp://www.smartrecovery.org/smart.htmif you're interested in more information on them.

[ If you suspect that Recovery Group Meetings have become central to the Drug Culture itself and are counterproductive to quickly and simply learning how to quit for good, then check out www.rational.org ]

[ DT ]