From: carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes)
Subject: Re: What this group is (and isn't) for
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:55:15 GMT

rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:

>Flaming and criticizing individuals is frowned upon by most people in
>this group.  So is criticism of other people's programs.  In doing
>that, I'm afraid that you crossed the line a bit, and may have invited
>some of the reactions you got.  Cross-posting to other newsgroups is
>also frowned upon, and for the same reasons--because the idea is to
>share our various experiences, not our conjectures.
>
>This is slightly different than the reasoned style of discussion I
>think you had in mind.  You may have encountered friction because it
>appears that you are attempting to discuss your ideas about AA, as
>opposed to your experience with AA.  It's a subtle difference, I must
>admit.  

I agree that sharing our personal experiences with recovery is
extremely valuable, but I see no reason why this newsgroup should be
*restricted* to talking about our personal experiences.  The
unofficial charter just says that alt.recovery is for people in
recovery programs such as AA, etc., nothing more specific.  I have
carefully avoided conjecture and speculation while writing about AA;
everything I have said has been based on solid information and
reliable sources, and I have done my best to reason carefully.  And a
few people have expressed their appreciation for my comments.

>As I understand it, we're here to help ourselves and each other, not
>to decide in any objective sense which method of help "is best."

The only people I have seen claiming "my program is the best" are a
few AA partisans who seem to believe that AA is the best recovery
program, period.  My own position, as I have said often enough, is
that different methods will be best for different folks, that AA works
well for some of them, and that there is no universally applicable
treatment.

I agree that we're here to help ourselves and each other, but I don't
agree that criticism of some aspects of a recovery program cannot be
helpful or constructive, for the following reasons:

(1) It's likely that there are a good many actual or potential readers
of alt.recovery who are trying to decide whether to enter this or that
recovery program.  I think they have an interest in reading postings
not only from a program's understandably enthusiastic but uncritical
devotees, but also from people who offer evidence that it only works
for a select minority, or who point out ways in which a program that
works well for some can obstruct the recovery of others or sometimes
replace one unhealthy addiction with another.

(2) Persons who have been in a particular recovery program or are just
trying it out may experience dissatisfaction with it, and it may be
helpful for them to know that their dissatisfaction is not necessarily
the result of some personal deficiency, that it isn't "just them", and
that they may have good reason for being uncomfortable with their
program.  

(3) Perhaps we disagree on this: I believe that our most important
ally against addiction is (scientifically based) knowledge, not a
Higher Power (although I have no objection to help from an HP if it's
available :-).  Consequently it concerns me when misinformation,
half-truths, or scientifically unsubstantiated claims are disseminated
publicly.  AA has done its share of this and continues to do so, by
propagating what is accurately described as its dogma:

* That alcoholism is most advantageously considered a disease rather
  than learned behavior.
* That people are born alcoholics and alcoholism is incurable, and 
  that alcoholism is something you *are*, not something you *do*.
* That alcoholism is progressive, inevitably growing worse if left
  untreated.
* That there is a clear-cut disjunction between "alcoholics" and other
  people, rather than a continuum of drinking problems.
* That alcoholics can't (rather than don't or won't) control their
  drinking, and consequently "one drink --> one drunk".  (A classic
  example of a self-fulfilling prophecy; instead of thoughtlessly 
  repeating this slogan, AA should replace it with "Taking a drink is 
  not a catastrophe, but it's a big mistake".)
* That it is impossible for any alcoholic to return to "normal"
  drinking, and lifelong abstention is the only way anyone ever 
  recovers.
* That AA is the most effective treatment for alcoholism across 
  the board.

and some other items.  None of these has been demonstrated
scientifically, and some are demonstrably false.  Such misconceptions
are potentially harmful to people like you, me, and the other readers
of this newsgroup, and I have tried to combat them.

I'm taking a holiday from posting articles, since I've been spending
too much time and energy on this newsgroup recently.

Richard
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs