Originally Posted by
jazzfish 
. I also like to remember that Vale's book is a technique to quit, not a scientific journal article. It only needs to be effective, not accurate. There's no reason to try and tear it apart.
At the end of the day my motive is not to tear things apart but to introduce positive skepticism to the recovery discussion. I understand how difficult it is to introduce critical thinking to recovery discussions. Most of us including me get sucked into particular "recovery views" and when we venture outside of these views or challenge them there is always some push back, but I am OK with that, if people get to think for themselves or tell me "Sam you have got me thinking there" then I am happy. Perhaps what may need challenging is ideas that recovery and addiction occupy sacred ground outside of rational thinking, that we are more successful walking on eggshells with each other then asking hard questions and offering critiques of techniques that make unfounded claims. I would argue that accurate provides us with the approach we can stick to with the least cognitive dissonance, and long term effectiveness stems from that space.