See here for original blog entry
Under Readers' comments.
We quote:
“Limitations
of research. - - Jul 1st 2009
According
to the Wikipedia entry on AA:
"The
study of AA tends to polarize observers into believers and
non-believers, and discussion of AA often creates controversy rather
than objective reflection."
AA
never claimed exclusivity, and acknowledges other as possible and
preferrable for some. Moreover, since it's impossible to be kicked
out of AA for incorrect thinking, a lot gets said at AA meetings, as
well as the opposite, and they are all allowed. Most meetings have a
no crosstalk policy, which means that interrupting, criticising or
making comments at meeting level directed to another person are
against group conscience.
As
for the studies, they are confimation that there is more than one way
to become sober and that AA is not for everyone. But because,
according to Wikipedia, "A randomized trial of AA is very
difficult because members are self-selected, not randomly selected
from the population of chronic alcoholics, with the possible
exception of those who participate in AA to comply with a court
mandate." Consequently, the studies done will never settle the
arguments pro or con. As for those forced to attend, some groups will
not sign attendance slips. They are also unlikely to do well since
they are often attending not out of choice. AA does not evangelize, a
practice that nonetheless occurs. But because except for being a
threat to the safety of a group, you can pretty well do or say
anything, even when it very frowned upon. AA may be the most
effective and lasting anarchy extant.”
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends
of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below
this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage
No comments:
Post a Comment