Moderated: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[ilsita]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I've started a thread over here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...60#post7299160

The link you posted pertains to many differing levels of drinking As I stated a few posts ago some of those therapies didn't work for me and I believe the reason why is directed related to the severity of my alcoholism. We can discuss it there if you'd like.

Yes, there are different levels of drinking, and also these differing levels of drinking seem to fluctuate throughout a persons lifetime and also tend to have a lifespan (obviously there are exceptions). I'll check out your thread... I think that would be a good place to discuss the NIAAA's NESARC study.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

The question of what constitutes an alcoholic is one I've thought about many times over the years (and probably played a part in me not getting sober sooner than I did). I tried to convince myself time and again over the years that I didn't have a serious drinking problem, I just needed to control it better.

As someone who has been drunk at least 5 000 times in his life and has at one time or another been assoociated with dozens (if not hundreds) of chronic drinkers, I'm not sure if there is much middle ground though I could be wrong.

It's all a spectrum. There's a certain point of no return where the disorders of your reward and pain avoidance systems are just too great when under the influence. It's liken to being "pickled so you can't be a cucumber again" I believe there are genuine cases for this, but I don't think there is a proper diagnosis for it.

Quote:

I'd go into furthur detail but it would be a huge derail. Maybe I'll start a thread in the appropriate sub-forum because I think it would be an interesting discussion and I'd learn quite a bit from it.

Good idea

Quote:

Anyway, I'd be interested in exploring the claim you made that alot of people have left AA and resumed drinking "normally" . Do you have any cites for it?

What do you want? Endless anonymous testimonies easily found in Google? No problem.

But I'll just copy and paste from Peele.

Quote:

The NLAES, found that half of all people diagnosed as alcohol dependent in the U.S. attained problem-free drinking - twice the number who abstain. It takes some people quite a while to do so, and some people (e.g., those who were younger when they were alcohol-dependent) stand a better chance of doing so, but this is an attainable goal for most people who have had a drinking problem.

Here's just one of those testimonies, notice the bolding in the previous and following quotes.

Quote:

So great to hear I am not the only one who was sober for 21 years thinking I was an alcoholic. I was brainwashed by my father in my teens that I was an alky, like my mother, who died a few years ago from it. I joined AA at 19 after a tough time, and too many drugs! Perfect fodder to the cult was I..after 2 years I left, and moved country, but stayed abstinent for 21 years.
I attended a meeting recently and was horrified at how awful it was, and thanks to Agent O, Stanton and the Moderation Management book I have discovered that I can ENJOY a glass of wine or 3 (spread out over 4 hours, in accordance with the BAC charts! I stay abstinent for 3 days a week at least and limit my weekly amount to 9. I have had no problems at all with cravings, obsessions, behaviour or ability to stop. In fact, I just naturally seem to stop.
It has been very exciting to learn I have this control and am not tainted with a disease. Also, I am glad my son won't inherit an addictive gene.
Happy days!

AnnaPing-HI I'm Anna and I'm not an alcoholic.

So, as dangerous as alcohol is, getting people involved in a program for life through fearmongering instead of education leads to some people being in AA their whole lives for no good reason.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by ilsita

That's interesting. So for you, turning over your life and will to the care of a higher power actually means being more in control of your life than anyone else because you are not in control? I'm not sure what the "etc etc" could possibly refer to. Usually, "etc" is used when what comes next is obvious, but I can't even imagine what that would be here, unless you went on to assert that up is down and black is white, etc.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not being deliberately obtuse here.

The point I am making is that very often in life I have no control over certain outcomes; my expectations can be such that when they are not met my disappointment is acute. I often drank on disappointment (eg. ego, self pity and resentments - those old favorites).

For me, handing over my life and my will (in many ways) is to hand over outcomes. eg. If I apply for a job, is it my will that will give it to me? No, I can do my best but I cannot guarantee or be certain of anything.
I might want to live to be 100 years old; do I have control over that? Hardly.

As I said, for me it is about managing expectations, not relinquishing control of my life, but 'handing over' (or letting go) of the things I can't. See also the serenity prayer/affirmation.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Worst story I ever heard was board meeting or something where many veterans with +5 years got into a huge argument over management and everybody went out and got drunk!

And of course you have evidence for this.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Amazing, thank you!

http://www.behaviortherapy.com/whatworks.htm

A picture perfect view of some of the things AA fails to pay attention to or willfully ignores.

Can you tell me what the success measure is here?
What I mean is how long are people sober after the action is taken. Are we saying that people who do a detox have 'x' success because they stayed there for a week and AA doesn't because someone left after a solitary meeting and drank.

Seriously, what are the measures?

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Wow, if by stubbies you mean beer or other alcohol, wow. that is a very tolerant meeting. I think most groups will not tolerate you drinking, I know some groups ask people to leave who are intoxicated.

If they are being disruptive to the meeting they would (probably) be guided out for a quiet discussion outside, but that has happened with sober people too.

I have seen drunk people in meetings many times: "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking".

Stubby = beer.
375ml. 4.9% alcohol/vol

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That is why a new tradition would be a good remedy.

I think this would be a great idea.

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

The idea that someone can't quit drinking on their own is just fiction. Most people do.

And many people don't. Go figure.

Originally Posted by ilsita

I thought you guys might be interested in this story, about a couple of secular AA groups who were purged from the local AA schedules, because if you take the God out, it's not AA anymore. I posted about it here:

stinkin-thinkin.com/2011/06/04/clowns-to-the-left-of-me/

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you take the God (of your understanding) out, you basically have the SMART program or something along similar lines.

Originally Posted by TheNooch

Because all men want a nice BJ, and the 13th step is just a way to get there.

Don't get me wrong, I think the deliberate predators that are about are awful. Moreover, I take an active role in educating the women I meet that are new to AA as well as in my work about the occasional danger that can pop up (er... so to speak) when they are early in and confused.

There are also predatory women and men who chase money or other symbols - being slightly famous can also be a drawback. These too are dangerous in any community setting and AA often warns against these perils in circulars etc.

That said, if there was anything illegal that happened I would hope that things were reported to the authorities immediately. For example, a rape case.
Now, would AA be drawn in and charged, or just the individual that perpetrated the crime?
Does AA support rape and 13th stepping - of course not.
Was Bill a pants man - by best estimates, sure.
Was it illegal? No
Was it reprehensible? Quite probably.

In a 13th step situation: Did AA support or facilitate this behavior or were there two individuals (adults by the way) that acted of their own volition. And was it a situation where both are responsible for their actions.

Again, I do not apologise for 13th steppers, the predators are reprehensible.

I have warned women (and men) of the perils of being 13th stepped, however that advice has often been ignored, sometimes and sadly with catastrophic results.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

And of course you have evidence for this.

It's an anonymous program, why are you asking me for evidence of who this was? This is just a weak attack on me, again, I'm telling someone a story in a side conversation and you use it as a weak attempt to attack me, can't say I'm shocked.

So did you read those pieces from The Grapevine about anti-psychiatry? Am I making stuff up still?

Did you figure out that Bill actually wrote "To Wives" yet and that I didn't make that up? What do you think of that? You never acknowledge anything, you just move on to the next attack.

Quote:

Can you tell me what the success measure is here?
What I mean is how long are people sober after the action is taken. Are we saying that people who do a detox have 'x' success because they stayed there for a week and AA doesn't because someone left after a solitary meeting and drank.

You're not making sense. This is a chart from a book, you'd need all of the studies they used and the book in front of you form coherent questions and answer them.

Quote:

Seriously, what are the measures?

All I said was is that it's a picture of what's out there that isn't part of the program that could be. Now you're asking me questions about how they got that data. Buy the book if you're interested. It's a starting point for more internet research if you're not going to buy the book. For example, if I google "brief interventions" I'm now on nih.gov, wow this is interesting. That was the spirit of my comment.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It's an anonymous program, why are you asking me for evidence of who this was?

LOL. So in terms of value, this story has even less weight than an anecdote.

Urban myth now counts as evidence.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

So did you read those pieces from The Grapevine about anti-psychiatry? Am I making stuff up still?

What did AA say?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Did you figure out that Bill actually wrote "To Wives" yet and that I didn't make that up? What do you think of that?

Interestingly I said I had never heard of that. I never said I didn't believe you. You have proof (for about the first time btw), what should I do? Bow?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You're not making sense. This is a chart from a book, you'd need all of the studies they used and the book in front of you form coherent questions and answer them.

All I said was is that it's a picture of what's out there that isn't part of the program that could be. Now you're asking me questions about how they got that data. Buy the book if you're interested. It's a starting point for more internet research if you're not going to buy the book. For example, if I google "brief interventions" I'm now on nih.gov, wow this is interesting. That was the spirit of my comment.

You said something to the effect that AA was ignoring the information. I am wondering what the hell the information actually means.

Unless we know what they are measuring success against, how can we know what we are looking at. You seemed very definitive in your support. What have you seen that I haven't.

I am being quite serious and honest when I ask what they are measuring success against, and what have you seen in there that I haven't?

And with regard to your link, I am well aware what a brief intervention is, I do them virtually daily. From your link:

Unlike traditional alcoholism treatment, which lasts many weeks or months, brief interventions can be given in a matter of minutes, and they require minimal followup.

Which goes to the heart of my original question around the results they were presenting.

So I ask again (remembering how you applauded so loudly) what are we measuring success against?

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

No I've never met a bible thumper "fundie" in AA, if I did and he/she started preaching to me, I'd tell them to get lost.

Read this carefully: I didn't use the term "Bible Thumper." I used the term "Big Book Thumper."

And of course you've seen them.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

Read this carefully: I didn't use the term "Bible Thumper." I used the term "Big Book Thumper."

And of course you've seen them.

In my experience the big book thumpers are a dying breed. I can't say I have seen more than two in the past 10 years, some of the old timers speak of them fairly regularly. I know, I know anecdotal again, but no more than yours.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I don't put much faith in a study that uses a survey of problem drinkers who are notorious liars as it's focus. I know I filled out at least 10 questionnaires concerning alcohol over the years and lied on every single one of them.

Project much?

So you're using standard AA tactic number 2: dismiss the study. Check.

At least this is slightly better than standard AA tactic 1, which is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

In my experience the big book thumpers are a dying breed. I can't say I have seen more than two in the past 10 years....

When you wrote this, were your pants actually on fire?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

LOL. So in terms of value, this story has even less weight than an anecdote.

Urban myth now counts as evidence.

You're behaving in a bizarre manner. Someone mentioned that AA groups can be unhealthy, and I told a story, it somehow offends you? I have it on good faith from multiple sources, anyone at this forum can take my word or not. We know you don't like me, so you won't. You think you can score points off of me for not giving evidence for a personal story! By this logic you should never tell any personal stories of your own about AA which you do all the time. This is just a weak attempt to have an attack point on me.

Quote:

What did AA say?

Alfie thinks he can apologize for AA's reputation by saying AA doesn't officially tell people to not take their medications. This is about the fourth time I'm asking you this question now. The problem is that they don't have a policy or structure of getting rid of sponsers and disciplining people who give anti-psychiatry advice. What is your plan to reform AA or why shouldn't they take those steps? Do you support my idea of putting a reporting and disciplining system in place so sponsees can report their sponsers?

Here is the post where people in AA Grapevine talk about their anti-psychiatry outrages in AA. It's a serious, outrageous problem, and all Alfie can say is "It's not on their website to tell people that" well, you're not helping AA deal with the problem either, that's all I'll say.

Quote:

Interestingly I said I had never heard of that. I never said I didn't believe you.

Whatever, this is what you said.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I had a browse through your link, it looks like opnions only (again)

You didn't even try, it was right in front of your face, I had to rub it in your face (again) Just another chance for you to try and attack me. Or just more of your war of attrition/fillibustering trying to send me on goose chases for evidence you don't even care do see. It's on AA's website FFS you didn't google it ("bill w to wives" how hard is that?), you didn't care, you just want to make me look bad! You mentioned it, asked for clarification, now what do you think about that? Did you actually care?

Quote:

You have proof (for about the first time btw),

lol

Quote:

what should I do? Bow?

Stop trolling?

Quote:

You said something to the effect that AA was ignoring the information. I am wondering what the hell the information actually means.

Well you should definitely buy the book then bud!

Quote:

Unless we know what they are measuring success against, how can we know what we are looking at.

It's a chart from a book!

Quote:

You seemed very definitive in your support. What have you seen that I haven't.
I am being quite serious and honest when I ask what they are measuring success against, and what have you seen in there that I haven't?

Well let's just take one, naltrexone, AA doesn't tell people that 80-plus percent of people with a certain gene variant respond really well to naltrexone and 20 sessions of therapy. No, they say "Come join the cult for the rest of your entire life! Don't stop going to meetings or you will lose your sobriety! The only way to keep it is to give it away! Cults are great fun, we already have a resident plumber, lawyer, you name it, throw your yellow pages away!" Etc... ok, and it takes up thousands of hours of people's lives.

Or exercise. Does AA teach people how much exercise can help them stay sober? It's not part of the education.

And the family and social counselling is extremely important, what kind of person really believes you're gong to get all of that from your new AA buddies... Oh man what a horror show.

Quote:

And with regard to your link, I am well aware what a brief intervention is, I do them virtually daily. From your link:

Unlike traditional alcoholism treatment, which lasts many weeks or months, brief interventions can be given in a matter of minutes, and they require minimal followup.

Which goes to the heart of my original question around the results they were presenting.

So I ask again (since) what are we measuring success against?

You'll have to explain to me what your problem is. To me, you have picked upon something extremely silly. A chart we have none of the supporting data on. It seems obvious that they are looking at people diagnosed with alcohol dependence getting better long-term, but we don't have the studies, so stop asking this question or ask ilsita, I just liked the list of other interventions people can research.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I have it on good faith from multiple sources, anyone at this forum can take my word or not.

LOL.
On "faith" now?
So far the bulk of your evidence consists of:
- assumptions.
- data that doesn't support your claims.
- opinions (of others)
- anecdotes
- urban myth
- and now "faith".

btw, I choose "not".

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

This is just a weak attempt to have an attack point on me.

A weak attempt perhaps. But success is success and I will take it.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Alfie thinks he can apologize for AA's reputation by saying AA doesn't officially tell people to not take their medications.

Which AA doesn't. You seem to have backed away from you accusations that "AA is anti-psych" (or similar) pretty fast though.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

This is about the fourth time I'm asking you this question now. The problem is that they don't have a policy or structure of getting rid of sponsers and disciplining people who give anti-psychiatry advice. What is your plan to reform AA or why shouldn't they take those steps? Do you support my idea of putting a reporting and disciplining system in place so sponsees can report their sponsers?

Clearly you missed the umpteen posts I have made about this. I have consistently said I thing these people fools who spout "pills are for dills" when talking about prescription medications.
What do I do? I try and educate where and when I can.

Policing sponsors wouldn't be possible, I do like DDs idea of another tradition however and think that could work.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Here is the post[/url] where people in AA Grapevine talk about their anti-psychiatry outrages in AA. It's a serious, outrageous problem, and all Alfie can say is "It's not on their website to tell people that" well, you're not helping AA deal with the problem either, that's all I'll say.

What does AA say on it?
You made the accusation that "AA is anti-psych" (or similar) and have backpedalled ever since.

So, I ask for the umpteenth time: What does AA say on it?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It's on AA's website FFS you didn't google it ("bill w to wives" how hard is that?), you didn't care, you just want to make me look bad! You mentioned it, asked for clarification, now what do you think about that? Did you actually care?

It is not my job to find your sources and look up a specific line in a wall of information. You get to do that.
I would not be a bit surprised that Bill wrote the chapter, but I'm not sure what the point of that is; most of us know what Bill was and many of his beliefs belong exactly where the Big Book resides for many, as an historical reference.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

lol
Stop trolling?

I will if you will.
Assuming that if I am one, you must be too.
It takes one to know one, as they say.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Well you should definitely buy the book then bud!

It's a chart from a book!

This is not the first time you have provided or supported links and found them not to contain what you thought.

Why don't you simply explain what you think this one says this time? Perhaps you could answer my question as to how this ranking comes into effect and against what measures.

You want to talk science, show me the science!

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Well let's just take one, naltrexone, AA doesn't tell people that 80-plus percent of people with a certain gene variant respond really well to naltrexone and 20 sessions of therapy. No, they say "Come join the cult for the rest of your entire life! Don't stop going to meetings or you will lose your sobriety! The only way to keep it is to give it away! Cults are great fun, we already have a resident plumber, lawyer, you name it, throw your yellow pages away!" Etc... ok, and it takes up thousands of hours of people's lives.

I didn't see any of that in that link. Can you pinpoint that part please?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You'll have to explain to me what your problem is.

Ooh goody! (clap clap)

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

To me, you have picked upon something extremely silly.

Are you ready?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

A chart we have none of the supporting data on.

There's part of it "none of the supporting data". Have you understood what you said?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It seems obvious that they are looking at people diagnosed with alcohol dependence getting better long-term, but we don't have the studies,

Ooh look, there's more:
Assumptions by you where you say "it seems obvious" and a huge hole in the information provided by virtue of "we don't have the studies".

Moreover, the linky you gave about brief interventions specifically outlines that they are predominantly for non-alcoholic type treatments. Thus making a lie of your "it seems obvious" statement about long term improvement.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

so stop asking this question or ask ilsita, I just liked the list of other interventions people can research.

More backpedalling. LOL.

And to top it all off, you extol it as a paragon of scientific virtue and proof of what AA is and isn't, yet you have no clue as to what it really says or what we are measuring success against.

Incredible!

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

LOL.
On faith now?

I choose "not".

Yeah, one of these people is family, they didn't lie to me. But whatever you want to believe is cool, we know you believe whatever you want already

Quote:

So far the bulk of your evidence consists of:
- assumptions.
- data that doesn't support your claims.
- opinions (of others)
- anecdotes
- urban myth
- and now "faith".

Blah blah blah just words Alfie get to work this is boring. You're just talking I've rebuked all of your fallacious attempts to malign me and straw man me, it's hilarious but sad.

Quote:

A weak attempt perhaps. But success is success and I will take it.

Bizarre, you failed.

Quote:

Which they don't. You seem to have backed away from you accusations that AA is anti-psych pretty fast though.

For the hundredth time, that is a straw man, Scientology is anti-psychiatry, AA is a faith healing cult that doesn't deal with it's own anti-psychiatry and the program and model leads to it memetically. These are very different claims and I'm sorry that they confuse you so badly.

Quote:

Clearly you missed the umpteen posts I have made about this. I have consistently said I thing these people fools who spout "pills are for dills" when talking about prescription medications.
I try and educate where and when I can.

That's not good enough.

Quote:

Policing sponsors wouldn't be possible,

LOL!!!! Impossible to run a professional accountable organization in AA! I Agree, too much of a cult!

Impossible! LOL!!! Explain why in detail AA has to allow the sponsers it gives power to give anti-psy advice. Please explain that!

Quote:

I do like DDs idea of another tradition.

Not good enough, it's already well-known to be offensive, they just do it anyway! You have to take their power away! This isn't allowed in SMART, AT ALL... Obviously the superior program in that regard...

Quote:

What does AA say on it? You made the accusation and have backpedalled ever since.

You made the straw man and ad homed ever since. I've explained this several times why are you repeating the same garbage arguments over and over the rest of the thread has moved on! You said your piece, nothing new is being produced here.

Quote:

So, I ask for the umpteenth time: What does AA say on it?

The might as well say not to do it explicitly and it wouldn't matter at all because what happens still happens!!! This is just unbelievable that you keep this up! :P

Quote:

It is not my job to find your sources and look up a specific line in a wall of information. You get to do that.

I'm sorry I figured anyone who cared enough would find it in moments but you obviously don't care. I mean everyone knows how to use ctrl-F on their keyboard right? Everyone's used google right?

Quote:

I am not surprised that Bill wrote the chapter, but I'm not sure what the point of that is;

Yes you are, go back and read about it, Bill was too controlling and insecure to let woman write it. He should have either done it honestly or not at all. Oh God I would be so ashamed of such an act!

Quote:

most of us know what Bill was and many of his beliefs belong exactly where the Big Book resides for many, as a historical reference.

Most of us? What? No one uses the big book to get sober anymore? I'll accept many, but I'll need to see lots of proof of people saying that the book a historical reference. So what you know damn well that it's not for millions of people. Good for you that you're in a modern group and it's just a support group and yadda yadda, I've never denied there are good and modern groups. I've pointed to what the actual program is and says and the common problems that are not dealt with because of it's cult nature, and all you do is apologize for your idealistc vision. No one cares Alfie. Good for you. Pat on the back. If you spent your time working to change the crappy groups and sponsers out there you'd be giving the program a good name but right now you're just a full time apologist for your own personal vision.

Quote:

I will if you will.
Assuming that if I am one, you must be too.
It takes one to know one, as they say.

This isn't funny, really.

Quote:

This is not the first time you have provided or supported links and found them not to contain what you thought.

1st, that's wrong or your imagination, reference that, good gawd.

2nd, all I said was that it's a list of SOME of the things AA doesn't include! That's all I said! And that's the truth! Your straw man is so hilarious!

Quote:

Why don't you simply explain what you think this one says this time? Perhaps you could answer my question as to how this ranking comes into effect and against what measures. You want to talk science, show me the science!

It's a meta-analysis I don't have the data for so I can't comment, and that's not an argument against me! You are HILARIOUS!!!

Quote:

I didn't see any of that in that link. Can you pinpoint that part please?

Naltrexone is in the link, those are the issues, I've already proven that, anyone can google naltrexone gene variant and see it's all true.

Quote:

Oh goody (clap clap)
Are you ready?
There's part of it "None of the supporting data"
There's more: Assumptions by you and "we don't have the studies"
More backpedalling. LOL.

All I said was "look at this interesting list of other treatments!" And you said "Look at this interesting straw man I can build against Joey McGee!" I never made any arguments with that. I'm just guessing, but you'll have to confirm that by buying the book I guess (I'm considering it, actually, but I won't be coming back to waste my time with you arguing about it obviously)

Quote:

And to top it all off, you extol it as a paragon of scientific virtue and proof of what AA is and isn't, yet you have no clue as to what it really says or what we are measuring success against.

Incredible!

No what's incredible is this ridiculous straw man you fabricated out of nothing but your imagination! WOW

[Hallo Alfie]

So you have made sufficient claims now stating you never said that "AA was anti-psych". You have accused both me and others of throwing straw. In fact I need not look too far back to see some of the denials and accusations you make (eg, your last post, 4th comment).
At any rate, I have let you writhe on the hook too long; here's just a little evidence exposing that lie: (my bolds)

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It remains to be postulated, what would you need to see in order to believe that the structure of AA has led to anti psychiatry?

I can concede that this is not really conclusive given it was posed in the form of a question; it was about structure and where it led. It was my first inkling of some backpedalling if I recall correctly. I would be happy to leave this......
.... But we have more.....

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

The reason I freaked out the first time is that I told him a story of how AA doesn't take mental illness seriously and is anti-psychiatry, faith healing. He tried to say that the 12-step people had it right anyway, and this kind of cult woo just drives me absolutely insane.

"AA is anti-psychiatry", plain as day. And not just in this thread, but in another too you say.
But look, we have more....

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You haven't responded to any of my arguments properly (small sample Alfie?). AA is anti-psychiatry, always was, and still is in many places, and your defense to this is that it's not on their website. .

AA "always was" anti psych and "still is in some places".
I would draw your attention to "always was".

I'm pretty sure I'm not misreading things here.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

The fact is that it's a faith healing cult and that goes along with anti-medication, it's a breeding ground for woo because of that. The belief is passed around within the organization memeticly because people are doing everything their sponser believes. That's the facts, ask around, it used to be a hardcore debate, and has only gotten better in the last decade. It was anti-psychiatry from the start that's it's history which anyone can confirm easily for themselves. You're holding up your idealized vision, I have no problem with that, you can't deny the documentation of history and the commonality of these problems today, you can't dispute a single claim I've made.

"Anti medication". Hmmm
AA " was anti-psch from the start" and you go on to say that "anyone can confirm easily for themselves". Except that you cannot. Yet you say I cannot deny the documentation. Where is this documentation and easy confirmation of which you speak?

You have on more than one occasion directly claimed "AA is anti-psych".
On more than one occasion, by more than one poster, you have been challenged on this.
On more than one occasion you have denied having ever said it.
On more than one occasion you have backpedalled (on just this one issue, there are others) and insulted the intelligence of other posters.
And on more than one occasion you have accused posters of fabrications and creating strawmen.

You cannot prove that "AA is anti-psych"; it is a far different thing to say some members might be, on which we agree.

But I will give you one thing, you are consistent and persistent in your abject dishonesty.

See ya.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

So you have made sufficient claims now stating you never said that "AA was anti-psych". You have accused both me and others of throwing straw. In fact I need not look too far back to see some of the denials and accusations you make (eg, your last post, 4th comment).
At any rate, I have let you writhe on the hook too long; here's just a little evidence exposing that lie: (my bolds)

Charming.

Quote:

Not really conclusive given it was posed in the form of a question, t was about structure and where it led. It was my first inkling of some backpedalling if I recall correctly. I would be happy to leave this......
.... But we have more.....

"AA is anti-psychiatry", plain as day. And not just in this thread, but in another too you say.
But look, we have more....

AA "always was" anti psych and "still is in some places".
I would draw your attention to "always was".

I'm pretty sure I'm not misreading things here.

Yes you are. This is pathetic. Just because I say the words "aa is antipsychiatry" and clarify after that means that effectively, not officially, doesn't mean you can try and turn my words against me as a pseudoargument later. You have known for pages that I don't think it's official, as it is with Scientology, yet you continuously make these statements. Why? Because you have nothing else to say.

Quote:

"Anti medication". Hmmm
AA " was anti-psch from the start" and you go on to say that "anyone can confirm easily for themselves". Except that you cannot.

It's the history of AA, yes. I can't confirm that it was official policy that they stated explicity to tell members to refuse drugs. But anyone can see that was the majority belief for it's entire history. I even quoted an article from the Grapevine where a sponser told their sponsee to keep their mouth shut about it in 2005! That means that it's so bad in that meeting they've intimidated the science-minded people into silence! Now is this an outrage we can fix?

Quote:

You have on more than one occasion directly claimed "AA is anti-psych".
On more than one occasion, by more than one poster, you have been challenged on this.
On more than one occasion you have denied having ever said it.
On more than one occasion you have backpedalled (on just this one issue, there are others) and insulted the intelligence of other posters.
And on more than one occasion you have accused posters of fabrications and creating strawmen.

No, you're spilling hairs over several pages on whether it's official or effective. I've always said it was effectively anti-psychiatry, WHICH IT IS!!! And I've never backed down from that. It's majority a faith-healing cult which led to majority anti-psychiatry. That's a generalized statement with all kinds of exceptions that do nothing to take away from the weight of evidence that the cult hurts people to this day. That's the facts, I've shown that. blah blah blah straw man ad hom.

Quote:

You cannot prove that "AA is anti-psych"; it is a far different thing to say some members might be, on which we agree.

It tolerates sponsers that tell people that, and some meetings are so bad that 30-year veterans quit after attending too many funerals, so you're apologizing for that by battling me on this insane ********.

Of course you skip the most important thing from my post

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Explain why in detail AA has to allow the sponsers it gives power to give anti-psy advice. Please explain that!

Probably because you just told me it was impossible to stop people from giving bad advice in AA! Yes, Alfie thinks it's impossible to control what people are told and change the program. Won't explain why he thinks this to us, but it's not possible apparently. Scary!

Quote:

But I will give you one thing, you are consistent and persistent in your abject dishonesty.

Good day.

Have fun apologizing for your doomed cult.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Yes you are. This is pathetic. Just because I say the words "aa is antipsychiatry" and clarify after that means that effectively, not officially, doesn't mean you can try and turn my words against me as a pseudoargument later. You have known for pages that I don't think it's official, as it is with Scientology, yet you continuously make these statements. Why?

To expose you as dishonest. Job done too by the way.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It's the history of AA, yes. I can't confirm that it was official policy that they stated explicity to tell members to refuse drugs.

So now it's not anti-psych.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

But anyone can see that was the majority belief for it's entire history.

Whoops! Now it is again? And "anyone can see"?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

No, you're spilling hairs over several pages on whether it's official or effective. I've always said it was effectively anti-psychiatry, WHICH IT IS!!!

Another flagrant lie; slipping in the word "effective" - you did not use that word. The evidence is just been posted and you are denying it again. Hilarious.


You are no longer simply dishonest but edging towards being an unmitigated liar.

[slingblade]

Joey's not been anymore dishonest than I have, which is to say, not at all.

Stop these personal attacks, please, both of you. I'd hate to see this thread tossed, or even moderated, but I've no problem asking for the moderation if I have to.

[hud]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

So, I just said that I quit on my own, and you extrapolated from that my position on recovery programs, explained it to me, and then told me how I am wrong in thinking it. You were talking about straw man arguments earlier. Well, that is a straw man. Anyway....

First, the topic of the thread is whether or not AA is religious, not to spoon feed you alternative recovery programs. I'm not quite sure why you think I have some sort of obligation to provide you with recovery choices. I'm internet guy, not your addictions counselor.

Having said that, if you think SMART or Rational Recovery or LifeRing or any other program will help you to actualize your quit, then more power to you. You may want to check out the Sinclair Method. Hell, I don't even care if you want to go to AA.

Of course, you are more likely to quit on your own, using my one-step method. I can't link posts yet, but if you add www onto this address, it is a link to the NIAAA site: spectrum.niaaa.nih.gov/features/alcoholism.aspx The idea that someone can't quit drinking on their own is just fiction. Most people do.

You actually said more than "I quit on my own." Your words were:

Quote:

I don't drink anymore, and used the same one-step method most people use: I quit drinking. It's simple, and unlike AA, there is an exit strategy; and it doesn't require the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics necessary to make it through AA.

To me that sounded like you were dismissing addiction as anything more than a problem of willpower.

If you would like you to explain exactly what you meant, please do. I'm all ears. Or you can stand up and just yell "STRAWMAN" again. Up to you.

It sounded like the same old, Just Say No, blame the victim crap that has not worked ever.

You see, I don't care if you enjoy AA bashing, there's plenty of that in this thread. Constructive solutions would be better IMO, but no you don't have to have any. But it seemed like you went one step further and stated that there really isn't much of a problem with alchol and drug addicition, really. Just quit.

Help me out, if I misunderstand you.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Another flagrant lie; slipping in the word "effective" - you did not use that word.

See, this is all you have "You didn't use that exact word!" So what? My meaning was the same, I've always been very clear about what I meant by that, your only defense was that it's not official policy, and I have never denied that. Now I use a new word, trying to explain this to you, and all you see is a shiny new straw man.

Your arguments are akin to "You didn't do everything perfectly by my standards therefore I win!" Kind of like truthers, if you can't explain every little anomaly, you're a shill. If there's any kind of exception to your statements, they are false. It doesn't work.

And you still won't answer my question. Why is it impossible to change AA to report the quack sponsers to an authority and stop this from happening to people? We're talking about people dying here.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Joey's not been anymore dishonest than I have, which is to say, not at all.

Thank you

Quote:

Stop these personal attacks, please, both of you. I'd hate to see this thread tossed, or even moderated, but I've no problem asking for the moderation if I have to.

You're so right, I apologize for my personal battle infringing on the public good.

slingblade I think you must be from heaven. your post number three sevens (#3777) was awesomely helpful and now number #3977 is also a Godsend so what can I say? Maybe numerology is true

[slingblade]

Thank you, Joey. You are doing tremendous good here. I want to see you continue.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Thank you, Joey. You are doing tremendous good here. I want to see you continue.

How much confirmation bias stroking does one need to remain happy?

[slingblade]

It's not confirmation bias, Al.

Look, if an actual social scientist began a study on these matters, the evidence for the study would be individual anecdotes, gathered, complied, and analyzed.

This is the data that goes into making the evidence.

[AlBell]

As I see it based on what you've posted, your bad experiences that you blame on AA, would make it difficult for you to accept as 'evidence' any comments favorable to AA, but have no trouble accepting detractors anecdotes as 'evidence'.

And here of course the detractors volume of posts are far outweighing others' views.

[Belz...]

100 pages of non-progress ! Fun for the whole family !

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by AlBell

As I see it based on what you've posted, your bad experiences that you blame on AA, would make it difficult for you to accept as 'evidence' any comments favorable to AA, but have no trouble accepting detractors anecdotes as 'evidence'.

And here of course the detractors volume of posts are far outweighing others' views.

I'm really only concerned with the religious question, which has been answered to my satisfaction. AA is a religiously oriented program. Period.

The rest is window dressing. The derails and side discussions really aren't pertinent. But the constant name-calling and claims of "dishonesty" are unfair and inaccurate.

I blame AA for its religious aspects that helped enable my abuser to keep on abusing. God is not accountable to anyone! As long as my abuser could fall back on such notions as, "My higher power isn't helping me yet; that's not my fault" or "you can't blame me for hitting you until you bleed, I'm powerless over alcohol," then he was being enabled by AA to continue.

I grant there are many whom it has helped.
That it helps a certain, undetermined number of people doesn't mean it never harms anyone.

By the way, that I have a certain attitude about it doesn't negate my argument. That's a fallacy, Al.

[ilsita]

Joey, regarding AA and psychiatry, I wonder if you're familiar with a pamphlet that Bill Wilson wrote called "Let's Be Friendly With Our Friends"? Wilson discusses how, while AA members might be reject the mental health field (among other institutions), it's important to stay on good terms with these outside entities and educate them in AA, because they can provide the enormous amount of money and greater -- legitimizing -- outreach to funnel people into AA than individual AA members can. Wilson acknowledges to readers that these outfits (psychiatry, medical science, churches) are pretty useless as far as actually helping alcoholics, but the point of this tract is to encourage members to see these institutions as a resource for spreading the AA message.

There are some interesting quotes in there, and a little bit of the history of Marty Mann and Jellinek and how they turned a spiritual disease into a legitimate chronic illness.

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-34_...iendlywith.pdf

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Joey's not been anymore dishonest than I have, which is to say, not at all.

Stop these personal attacks, please, both of you. I'd hate to see this thread tossed, or even moderated, but I've no problem asking for the moderation if I have to.

I agree, but Alfie has a point, Joey's making many assertions without evidence.

The cult comparasions are mean and baseless.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I agree, but Alfie has a point, Joey's making many assertions without evidence.

The cult comparasions are mean and baseless.

Not if that's truly his opinion. We're allowed to have opinions, and AA isn't a person, so its feelings aren't being hurt by his being "mean."

If AA members find his cult statements to be offensive, I'd wonder why they're bothering to take someone's opinion so close to heart, if they know better for themselves? blow it off, and keep on track with the more rational argumentation.

Joey's got a right to his opinion, Y'all got a right to disagree with it.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

If they are being disruptive to the meeting they would (probably) be guided out for a quiet discussion outside, but that has happened with sober people too.

I have seen drunk people in meetings many times: "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking".

Stubby = beer.
375ml. 4.9% alcohol/vol

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=4615



I think this would be a great idea.

Thanks!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by slingblade

. Period.

the science of period is far from settled!

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Not if that's truly his opinion. We're allowed to have opinions, and AA isn't a person, so its feelings aren't being hurt by his being "mean."

If AA members find his cult statements to be offensive, I'd wonder why they're bothering to take someone's opinion so close to heart, if they know better for themselves? blow it off, and keep on track with the more rational argumentation.

Joey's got a right to his opinion, Y'all got a right to disagree with it.

I guess, but as a member of A.A. it comes across as an ad hom attack.

Also Joey should take your advice as well, he might interpret Alfie's remarks as attacks where I see them as rational arguments.

Alfie has his right to an opinion and you can all feel free to disagree with him.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I agree, but Alfie has a point, Joey's making many assertions without evidence.

What do you want? Me to invent you a time machine so you can go back and see it first hand? Did you read that pamphlet? Bill apologizes for it himself.

Quote:

"Now this may seem to be a confession of the sins of AA and it some part it is. It is also a confession that, at one time or another, I have myself held many of these often short-sighted views and prejudices. But I do make haste to to add that what I've just said applies more to A.A.'s past than present"

Wow. Still saying the same apologies over 50 years later... Whatever they tried to do to prevent anti-psychiatry, it failed, because the faith healing nature and their belief was too strong. It took on a life of it's own. They believed in the program too much to "neuter" it by making it a responsible and accountable to science. Like Bill W said "we have little time for biochemists"

Quote:

The cult comparasions are mean and baseless.

What's wrong with my evidence for the XXth time?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by slingblade

I'm really only concerned with the religious question, which has been answered to my satisfaction. AA is a religiously oriented program. Period.

It is for those who want it to be. Otherwise, no. Period.

Quote:

The rest is window dressing. The derails and side discussions really aren't pertinent. But the constant name-calling and claims of "dishonesty" are unfair and inaccurate.

Adds to the lulz though.

Quote:

I blame AA for its religious aspects that helped enable my abuser to keep on abusing. God is not accountable to anyone! As long as my abuser could fall back on such notions as, "My higher power isn't helping me yet; that's not my fault" or "you can't blame me for hitting you until you bleed, I'm powerless over alcohol," then he was being enabled by AA to continue.

And I blame you for blaming AA for your problems rather than blaming an alcoholic husband.

Quote:

I grant there are many whom it has helped.
That it helps a certain, undetermined number of people doesn't mean it never harms anyone.

Perhaps. On balance the harm provided by drinking alcoholics so far outweighs damage caused by AA makes it a laughable comparison.

Quote:

By the way, that I have a certain attitude about it doesn't negate my argument. That's a fallacy, Al.

What argument? AA has a religious orientation. Period. ???

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it remains just that, opinion.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by ilsita

Joey, regarding AA and psychiatry, I wonder if you're familiar with a pamphlet that Bill Wilson wrote called "Let's Be Friendly With Our Friends"? Wilson discusses how, while AA members might be reject the mental health field (among other institutions), it's important to stay on good terms with these outside entities and educate them in AA, because they can provide the enormous amount of money and greater -- legitimizing -- outreach to funnel people into AA than individual AA members can. Wilson acknowledges to readers that these outfits (psychiatry, medical science, churches) are pretty useless as far as actually helping alcoholics, but the point of this tract is to encourage members to see these institutions as a resource for spreading the AA message.

There are some interesting quotes in there, and a little bit of the history of Marty Mann and Jellinek and how they turned a spiritual disease into a legitimate chronic illness.

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-34_...iendlywith.pdf

That really is some amazing material, thank you.

I liked this part, enjoy friends! It's a secured file, I had to type it out.

Quote:

Later in 1937, the renowned physiologist Dr. Anton Carlson and a group of interested scientists formed a subsidiary body called the Research Council on Problems of Alcohol. This was to be a more inclusive effort. Some of us early New York A.A.'s went to their meetings-- sometimes to cheer and sometimes, I must confess, to jeer. (A.A. you see, then thought it had a monopoly on the drunk fixing business!

There are a lot of strange-sounding statements in there. I mean everyone knows Bill couldn't have been completely against psychiatry, he was all about giving alcoholics LSD at one point The point is what the movement has lead to, and still leads to today, despite the best efforts of people over the years. Simple, the cult memetics are stronger than the people inside of the organization.

[ilsita]

Joey, I think what's also significant about that is that Wilson was agreeing that these institutions are useless for alcoholics, but that they can and should be co-opted. He is not saying that psychiatry or medical science should be respected for any reason, and validates his member's rejection... He just finds it short sighted for people not to recognize the opportunity that these institutions present for furthering the AA message, as they can provide the resources, legitimization, and big piles of cash. It's incredibly cynical and opportunistic.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by ilsita

... the opportunity that these institutions present for furthering the AA message, as they can provide the resources, legitimization, and big piles of cash. It's incredibly cynical and opportunistic.

They can? Are they?

What resources? What legitimization? How much cash? Who, where, and when?

[ilsita]

AlBell,

The courts, doctors, and people in the mental health fields routinely shunt people into AA or 12 Step treatment facilities (which then use AA as aftercare). How do you think that happened? A huge industry has grown up around AA (which serves as the poor, innocent, benevolent, completely unaffiliated revolving door of this relap$e factory). Having doctors, psychiatrists, judges, teachers, media and cultural icons promoting AA has definitely legitimized it. AA has pamphlets directed toward all kinds of professional people -- courts, media, clergy, doctors -- "educating" them about alcoholism, and urging them to send people to AA. This is an effort.

Do you seriously not see that Marty Mann left AA, releasing herself from the traditions, in order to devote herself to turning a "spiritual disease" into a legitimate one? Her efforts and wealth -- as outlined by Wilson in this pamphlet -- led to the "science" behind the bogus disease model, and led to the AMA's official declaration.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by hud

It sounded like the same old, Just Say No, blame the victim crap that has not worked ever.

You see, I don't care if you enjoy AA bashing, there's plenty of that in this thread. Constructive solutions would be better IMO, but no you don't have to have any. But it seemed like you went one step further and stated that there really isn't much of a problem with alchol and drug addicition, really. Just quit.

Help me out, if I misunderstand you.

If you are addicted to alcohol or anything else, you aren't a victim. You did it to yourself. It's your fault. Just as there's no sobriety god waiting for you to start going to meetings so he/she/it can remove your addiction, there's no boogie man lying in wait imposing addiction on you or anyone else. You did it to yourself.

And, yes, just quit. If you can't do it on your own, get some help. Real help, not AA religious faith healing. It's not my job to vet the programs or drug treatments for you.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

If you are addicted to alcohol or anything else, you aren't a victim. You did it to yourself. It's your fault. Just as there's no sobriety god waiting for you to start going to meetings so he/she/it can remove your addiction, there's no boogie man lying in wait imposing addiction on you or anyone else. You did it to yourself.

And, yes, just quit. If you can't do it on your own, get some help. Real help, not AA religious faith healing. It's not my job to vet the programs or drug treatments for you.

[hud]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

...
It's not my job to vet the programs or drug treatments for you.

Second time you've said that, and I still don't know why. I'm not asking you to do anything for me, brother. Trust me on that one.

I think that it is easy to criticize, and hard to offer constructive solutions. Easier than both is denying there is a problem. I think you've chosen that path, but I could be wrong of course.

I do like the simplicity of your philosophy though.

Quote:

If you are addicted to alcohol or anything else, you aren't a victim. You did it to yourself. It's your fault. Just as there's no sobriety god waiting for you to start going to meetings so he/she/it can remove your addiction, there's no boogie man lying in wait imposing addiction on you or anyone else. You did it to yourself.

I think I'll use it for:

Fat people - Just stop eating. You did this to yourself.
Poor people - Just get a job! You did this to yourself.
Homeless people - Get a House! And a job! You did this to yourself.

(I had to throw in a few things you could yell strawman about )