Comments on: Wikipedia Trashes Rational Recovery® http://www.rational.org/blog/46/ Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, AA, 12-step Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:44:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Zach119 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-19115 Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:24:34 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-19115 Until recently,I didn't know that Wikipedia could be edited by anyone.I will quit using it as a reliable source of information.I have met many people who feel that AA is a joke,but they still believe in much of the ideology,that has come from this group.I have told many people that I quit my addiction by using Rational Recovey,but they always run back to AA,where they are comfortable with the Addictive Voice. Alot of people don't want to quit their addiction,and they would rather stay in the revolving door of AA,where they can drink,and people will tell them that their behavior is not immoral.I just tell people how I quit,if the subject comes up,and they can take it or leave it.People will believe what they want to believe,and if they truly want to quit,they will try something other than AA,just like I did. After a few years of sobriety,I went to DUI School,and got my drivers license back.The instructor,who was of course a 12 stepper,asked me if I went to treatment,or AA,and I told him that I quit drinking on my own.He told me that Self Recovery was very rare,and was completely amazed that I quit drinking without the help of Recovery Groups.I tried telling him that people do it all the time,but he did not want to believe that.I did not argue with him any further,it was pointless,I cooperated with the class,and got my Drivers License back. <blockquote>Zach, I love your message because it is a clear, true image of our society, our culture, and our social service system. In recent decades America the Beautiful has turned into America the Beast, forcing the lower nature of homo sapiens upon its citizens through the health and social service systems. This is a public health catastrophe, causing more suffering and death than all major illnesses including addiction. To trap addicted people in the mental straight jacket of 12-step recovery is inhumane and a fundamental violation of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No, the gooey, rehearsed testimonials of people in recovery are categorically invalid, the bleatings and growls of caged animals. Jack Trimpey</blockquote> Until recently,I didn’t know that Wikipedia could be edited by anyone.I will quit using it as a reliable source of information.I have met many people who feel that AA is a joke,but they still believe in much of the ideology,that has come from this group.I have told many people that I quit my addiction by using Rational Recovey,but they always run back to AA,where they are comfortable with the Addictive Voice.

Alot of people don’t want to quit their addiction,and they would rather stay in the revolving door of AA,where they can drink,and people will tell them that their behavior is not immoral.I just tell people how I quit,if the subject comes up,and they can take it or leave it.People will believe what they want to believe,and if they truly want to quit,they will try something other than AA,just like I did.

After a few years of sobriety,I went to DUI School,and got my drivers license back.The instructor,who was of course a 12 stepper,asked me if I went to treatment,or AA,and I told him that I quit drinking on my own.He told me that Self Recovery was very rare,and was completely amazed that I quit drinking without the help of Recovery Groups.I tried telling him that people do it all the time,but he did not want to believe that.I did not argue with him any further,it was pointless,I cooperated with the class,and got my Drivers License back.

Zach,

I love your message because it is a clear, true image of our society, our culture, and our social service system. In recent decades America the Beautiful has turned into America the Beast, forcing the lower nature of homo sapiens upon its citizens through the health and social service systems. This is a public health catastrophe, causing more suffering and death than all major illnesses including addiction. To trap addicted people in the mental straight jacket of 12-step recovery is inhumane and a fundamental violation of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No, the gooey, rehearsed testimonials of people in recovery are categorically invalid, the bleatings and growls of caged animals.

Jack Trimpey

]]> by: KEVIN http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-13094 Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:29:43 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-13094 Jack, You're right, it is a game, but you've already enjoined yourself in it by entering into public debate. I find myself nodding in agreement with much of your sentiment, but shaking my head at your messaging skills. The blog post above and the article in which you attack funding for recovery and mental health programs, heck, your entire website, come across as angry and, I'm sorry to say, vitriolic. Wikipedia can be updated by whomever choses. I've worked political campaigns for years, and places like wikipedia are battlegrounds that tend, in the end, to balance themselves, with both sides of an argument creating a somewhat neutral perspective, but that is assuming both sides put their effort into framing the issue. Anger and harsh tones do not effectively sway the hearts and minds of men, and with an active opponent, one seeking to destroy you, one afraid you are out to destroy them, you must fight with rationality and from a calm, sensible space. Until you do this you will be seen as yet another screaching voice among the already overcrowded din that is the internet and our modern world of communications. I truly hope you can revise your methods so that your message can be heard. <blockquote>Kevin, I have quickly re-read my blog on Wiki-Dialectics to see if it meets my own standards of clarity, accuracy, and tone. It does. For twenty years, I have been criticized and chastised for the tone of my writing. Some feedback is simply hate mail from group-addled groupers, but some is from erudite passers-by like yourself sharing some reflexive wisdom. It seems to boil down to the idea that my strong, impassioned language coupled with moral outrage is inappropriate. I do have the ability to modulate the tone of my writing and speech, and, as you might imagine, I’ve attempted and used a number of styles to reach certain readerships. For example, when I get snot-flying, gutter-ball hate mail from the truly offended, I sometimes respond in kind with back-alley invective, but with a twist intended to pry at consciousness. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I have also experimented with calm, dispassionate forms of professional discourse, using less colorful language and focusing on objective, factual information, careful to avoid offending sensitive ears. Like the wearisome chirping of a cricket, my outpourings of neutral tones put both me and my audience to sleep. Most irksome, however, are the erudite critics who quickly assess what’s going on in the struggle between the forces of addiction and recovery, and conclude that I should “tone it down,” so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who need to know. Those erudite, self-appointed mentors often bring to the table considerable talent, education and experience in academia, health, and politics, plus a condescending certainty that the failure of Rational Recovery® to rise as a giant in our society has to do with its messenger more than it has to do with the nature of addiction itself. I have never found a critic of my caustic, sarcastic, biting discourse who had the faintest idea of what addiction is, for the simple reason that once such a critic catches on to the little logic engine of AVRT®, he, too, becomes yet another screeching voice communicating in outraged, sensational language, warning everyone to stay away from recovery groups of all kinds. Jack Trimpey</blockquote> Jack,
You’re right, it is a game, but you’ve already enjoined yourself in it by entering into public debate. I find myself nodding in agreement with much of your sentiment, but shaking my head at your messaging skills. The blog post above and the article in which you attack funding for recovery and mental health programs, heck, your entire website, come across as angry and, I’m sorry to say, vitriolic. Wikipedia can be updated by whomever choses. I’ve worked political campaigns for years, and places like wikipedia are battlegrounds that tend, in the end, to balance themselves, with both sides of an argument creating a somewhat neutral perspective, but that is assuming both sides put their effort into framing the issue. Anger and harsh tones do not effectively sway the hearts and minds of men, and with an active opponent, one seeking to destroy you, one afraid you are out to destroy them, you must fight with rationality and from a calm, sensible space. Until you do this you will be seen as yet another screaching voice among the already overcrowded din that is the internet and our modern world of communications. I truly hope you can revise your methods so that your message can be heard.

Kevin,

I have quickly re-read my blog on Wiki-Dialectics to see if it meets my own standards of clarity, accuracy, and tone. It does.

For twenty years, I have been criticized and chastised for the tone of my writing. Some feedback is simply hate mail from group-addled groupers, but some is from erudite passers-by like yourself sharing some reflexive wisdom. It seems to boil down to the idea that my strong, impassioned language coupled with moral outrage is inappropriate.

I do have the ability to modulate the tone of my writing and speech, and, as you might imagine, I’ve attempted and used a number of styles to reach certain readerships. For example, when I get snot-flying, gutter-ball hate mail from the truly offended, I sometimes respond in kind with back-alley invective, but with a twist intended to pry at consciousness. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

I have also experimented with calm, dispassionate forms of professional discourse, using less colorful language and focusing on objective, factual information, careful to avoid offending sensitive ears. Like the wearisome chirping of a cricket, my outpourings of neutral tones put both me and my audience to sleep.
Most irksome, however, are the erudite critics who quickly assess what’s going on in the struggle between the forces of addiction and recovery, and conclude that I should “tone it down,” so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who need to know. Those erudite, self-appointed mentors often bring to the table considerable talent, education and experience in academia, health, and politics, plus a condescending certainty that the failure of Rational Recovery® to rise as a giant in our society has to do with its messenger more than it has to do with the nature of addiction itself.

I have never found a critic of my caustic, sarcastic, biting discourse who had the faintest idea of what addiction is, for the simple reason that once such a critic catches on to the little logic engine of AVRT®, he, too, becomes yet another screeching voice communicating in outraged, sensational language, warning everyone to stay away from recovery groups of all kinds.

Jack Trimpey

]]> by: Joe http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12713 Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:29:39 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12713 As a believer in RR I had to check out Wikipedia to see what was up. In all fairness it seems as though the pendulum is swinging towards a more neutral/objective "definition" of RR. I add that I am troubled with the labeling of RR as "for profit" and I think we have a way to go before RR is fairly represented. Let's face it - there are more "AA Nazi" types out there trying to defend what I see as their cult so this doesn't really surprise me. Keep up the good work Jack and Lois. As a believer in RR I had to check out Wikipedia to see what was up. In all fairness it seems as though the pendulum is swinging towards a more neutral/objective “definition” of RR. I add that I am troubled with the labeling of RR as “for profit” and I think we have a way to go before RR is fairly represented. Let’s face it - there are more “AA Nazi” types out there trying to defend what I see as their cult so this doesn’t really surprise me. Keep up the good work Jack and Lois.

]]> by: Jim Heckel http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12600 Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:31:47 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12600 Ah, Wikipedia...a ghetto encyclopedia for dimwits. I believe Satchel Pooch from the comic strip Get Fuzzy summed it up nicely when he referred to Wikipedia as "Wackypedia". Fitting, no? Ah, Wikipedia…a ghetto encyclopedia for dimwits.

I believe Satchel Pooch from the comic strip Get Fuzzy summed it up nicely when he referred to Wikipedia as “Wackypedia”. Fitting, no?

]]> by: Craig Talbert http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12564 Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:47:29 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12564 I am sorry you feel so negatively about wikipedia. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of it, and I have invited you (or someone who reads your blog, apparently) to contribute to the Rational Recovery article. See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rational_Recovery#This_wikipedia_entry_makes_a_sham_of_the_online_encyclopedia. Wikipedia does, however, have policies and guidelines that users are expected to follow to keep things running smoothly. In my experience, when followed, they produce good objective articles. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. P.S. I agree that the "vitriolic" statement is not in keep with a Neutral Point of View (aka NPOV), and will remove it. Take Care, Craig I am sorry you feel so negatively about wikipedia. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of it, and I have invited you (or someone who reads your blog, apparently) to contribute to the Rational Recovery article. See discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rational_Recovery#This_wikipedia_entry_makes_a_sham_of_the_online_encyclopedia.

Wikipedia does, however, have policies and guidelines that users are expected to follow to keep things running smoothly. In my experience, when followed, they produce good objective articles.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

P.S. I agree that the “vitriolic” statement is not in keep with a Neutral Point of View (aka NPOV), and will remove it.

Take Care,

Craig

]]> by: John McCready http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12545 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:57 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12545 I read your latest RR blog entry on the "Wikepedia attack" on RR, and I can't help but wonder if your choice to NOT RESPOND to their bias is the wrong tactic (it's well known in the political campaign arena, that once you have been attacked, you have ARRIVED, and are considered a THREAT, and I think that is where RR is now!)I am sure you are aware of AA's "Midtown" group scandal (dating back to April that was even in Newsweek magazine!). AA's response was of course. . . . NOTHING (as the AA G.S.O. does not comment on what a local group does!), and AA's long-held fallacious belief that it has "THE" answer to "alcoholism", and sobriety attainment. I would hate to see RR get accused of using THAT arrogant tactic over this subjectively written "Wikepedia" entry. I did read that entry for Rational Recovery, and with the exception of the sentence, "it causes concern to those in the 12-Step community" (like THEIR opions are the "only ones" that matter?), most of the article appeared to be factual. I saw that one of the footnotes led to RR's 12/31/98 "proclaimation" stating that ALL "recovery groups" were now cancelled (I loved it, am printing it, and intend to circulate it amongst my DUI program clients!). If there is ANY erroneous information in the RR entry of "Wikipedia", then hold the idiots that RUN "Wikipedia responsible, by suing them for libel, or correct it yourself, and back it with the facts in a LINK TO THE RR WEB-SITE! If "Wikipedia" is indeed a "free-for-all encyclopedia", where ANYONE, can enter ANYTHING about ANY ENTITY, then a few "choice entries" about AA, and all 12-Step groups should be made on THOSE "Wikipedia" entrys! (Remember-in political campaigns-NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS WORK, and TWO can play the game, right?). The bottom line is: if RR is "under attack" by "Wikipedia" (or any other source for that matter), I hope RR can launch a COUNTER-ATTACK against the mis-informers, and any perpetuated MIS-INFORMATION! Taking the same tactic that AA does when it gets attacked (i.e. not commenting on a "outside issue"!), puts RR at the SAME LEVEL OF ARROGANCE that AA acts with, and I hope that RR is better then that! <blockquote>John, I simply refuse to play the dialectics game. The RR website is the authentic source on Rational Recovery®, and I won’t play ball with Wikipedia populism. Several readers have already dashed to the scene of the silliness and posted new information intended to correct the offending version, but others have also run off to AA’s Wikipedia page to “correct” that official advertisement. What we have in Wikipedia is essentially a graffiti war, with everybody poised for attack with spray cans drawn. Once the side of a bus is marked by one party, the other side comes during the night to blot out the offending message and place their own message in bold colors. Next day, editors look as the mess and try to clean it up a little. Look what’s going on among the Wikipedia editors who are processing <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rational_Recovery#This_wikipedia_entry_makes_a_sham_of_the_online_encyclopedia">the Rational Recovery® mess.</a> The editors, still immersed in the disease concept of addiction and the recovery group paradigm, have apparently not read <em>Rational Recovery: The New Cure for Substance Addiction, </em>and have practically no comprehension of AVRT-based recovery. They still think RR/AVRT® is an alternative to AA rather than to addiction. Even the editors who favor RR fail to see that AA is a fellowship of addiction and that the 12-step program is the doctrinal form of the Addictive Voice. They want to silence the vital, ideological conflict upon which addiction recovery itself depends. When I’m invited to appear on radio or TV, the producer most often provides me with a 12-step chaperone to guarantee a “fair and balanced” program. The stepper then neutralizes each of my comments with confounding steptalk. I now decline such invitations, noting that I’m never called for my opinions when 12-steppers come onstage. Likewise, I decline to spray paint my version of Rational Recovery® on Wikipedia, where my version will be systematically neutralized by balancing commentary. Wikipedia must not be allowed to <em>define</em> Rational Recovery® or Addictive Voice Recognition Technique® (AVRT®), while pretending to support objective reporting and scientific truth. Neither of these priceless commodities are attainable through the democratic process. If the editors will simply make the link to the <strong>Rational Recovery®</strong> website conspicuous at the beginning of whatever else is entered, then it doesn’t really matter what the spray cans tell. If they won’t, then their agenda is flapping in the wind. The blogosphere is to Pajama Journalism as Wikipedia is to Academia in the Raw. There’s no use in suing a bunch of guy sitting in their undies as they play Professor-of-the-Day. Jack Trimpey</blockquote> I read your latest RR blog entry on the “Wikepedia attack” on RR, and I can’t help but wonder if your choice to NOT RESPOND to their bias is the wrong tactic (it’s well known in the political campaign arena, that once you have been attacked, you have ARRIVED, and are considered a THREAT, and I think that is where RR is now!)I am sure you are aware of AA’s “Midtown” group scandal (dating back to April that was even in Newsweek magazine!). AA’s response was of course. . . . NOTHING (as the AA G.S.O. does not comment on what a local group does!), and AA’s long-held fallacious belief that it has “THE” answer to “alcoholism”, and sobriety attainment. I would hate to see RR get accused of using THAT arrogant tactic over this subjectively written “Wikepedia” entry. I did read that entry for Rational Recovery, and with the exception of the sentence, “it causes concern to those in the 12-Step community” (like THEIR opions are the “only ones” that matter?), most of the article appeared to be factual. I saw that one of the footnotes led to RR’s 12/31/98 “proclaimation” stating that ALL “recovery groups” were now cancelled (I loved it, am printing it, and intend to circulate it amongst my DUI program clients!).

If there is ANY erroneous information in the RR entry of “Wikipedia”, then hold the idiots that RUN “Wikipedia responsible, by suing them for libel, or correct it yourself, and back it with the facts in a LINK TO THE RR WEB-SITE! If “Wikipedia” is indeed a “free-for-all encyclopedia”, where ANYONE, can enter ANYTHING about ANY ENTITY, then a few “choice entries” about AA, and all 12-Step groups should be made on THOSE “Wikipedia” entrys! (Remember-in political campaigns-NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS WORK, and TWO can play the game, right?).

The bottom line is: if RR is “under attack” by “Wikipedia” (or any other source for that matter), I hope RR can launch a COUNTER-ATTACK against the mis-informers, and any perpetuated MIS-INFORMATION! Taking the same tactic that AA does when it gets attacked (i.e. not commenting on a “outside issue”!), puts RR at the SAME LEVEL OF ARROGANCE that AA acts with, and I hope that RR is better then that!

John,

I simply refuse to play the dialectics game. The RR website is the authentic source on Rational Recovery®, and I won’t play ball with Wikipedia populism. Several readers have already dashed to the scene of the silliness and posted new information intended to correct the offending version, but others have also run off to AA’s Wikipedia page to “correct” that official advertisement.

What we have in Wikipedia is essentially a graffiti war, with everybody poised for attack with spray cans drawn. Once the side of a bus is marked by one party, the other side comes during the night to blot out the offending message and place their own message in bold colors. Next day, editors look as the mess and try to clean it up a little.

Look what’s going on among the Wikipedia editors who are processing the Rational Recovery® mess.

The editors, still immersed in the disease concept of addiction and the recovery group paradigm, have apparently not read Rational Recovery: The New Cure for Substance Addiction, and have practically no comprehension of AVRT-based recovery. They still think RR/AVRT® is an alternative to AA rather than to addiction. Even the editors who favor RR fail to see that AA is a fellowship of addiction and that the 12-step program is the doctrinal form of the Addictive Voice. They want to silence the vital, ideological conflict upon which addiction recovery itself depends.

When I’m invited to appear on radio or TV, the producer most often provides me with a 12-step chaperone to guarantee a “fair and balanced” program. The stepper then neutralizes each of my comments with confounding steptalk. I now decline such invitations, noting that I’m never called for my opinions when 12-steppers come onstage. Likewise, I decline to spray paint my version of Rational Recovery® on Wikipedia, where my version will be systematically neutralized by balancing commentary.

Wikipedia must not be allowed to define Rational Recovery® or Addictive Voice Recognition Technique® (AVRT®), while pretending to support objective reporting and scientific truth. Neither of these priceless commodities are attainable through the democratic process. If the editors will simply make the link to the Rational Recovery® website conspicuous at the beginning of whatever else is entered, then it doesn’t really matter what the spray cans tell. If they won’t, then their agenda is flapping in the wind.

The blogosphere is to Pajama Journalism as Wikipedia is to Academia in the Raw. There’s no use in suing a bunch of guy sitting in their undies as they play Professor-of-the-Day.

Jack Trimpey

]]> by: DS http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12515 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:03:18 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12515 You do realize that WikiHow can also be edited by anyone and in that sense is no different from WikiPedia, right? It also uses the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia. <blockquote>DS, I don’t know anything about how to edit Wiki pages. I don’t plan to contribute anything to Wiki-anything for the same reason I do not hang out in the UseNet groups: lowbrow, graffiti-style participation. Jack Trimpey</blockquote> You do realize that WikiHow can also be edited by anyone and in that sense is no different from WikiPedia, right? It also uses the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia.

DS,

I don’t know anything about how to edit Wiki pages. I don’t plan to contribute anything to Wiki-anything for the same reason I do not hang out in the UseNet groups: lowbrow, graffiti-style participation.

Jack Trimpey

]]> by: Janie Clark http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12463 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:47:09 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/46/#comment-12463 Read the <em>Time Magazine</em> article this month....you who refer to addiction as "masturbation" are a sick lot. My pryers are with you. <blockquote>Janie, Addiction is very much like masturbation in that drinking/using is the pursuit of physical pleasure in solitude, using pleasure-producing chemicals. It helps to see addiction as it is, chemically-enhanced stupidity, rather than as a mysterious disease that requires quarantine in recovery groups. Stupidity, we can do something about; addictive disease is for life! Jack Trimpey</blockquote> Read the Time Magazine article this month….you who refer to addiction as “masturbation” are a sick lot. My pryers are with you.

Janie,

Addiction is very much like masturbation in that drinking/using is the pursuit of physical pleasure in solitude, using pleasure-producing chemicals.

It helps to see addiction as it is, chemically-enhanced stupidity, rather than as a mysterious disease that requires quarantine in recovery groups. Stupidity, we can do something about; addictive disease is for life!

Jack Trimpey

]]>