Originally Posted by
daredevil 
Steven,
I can appreciate the TFM, and I know you believe what you believe and articulate here, and I do enjoy reading your thoughts.
But I was wondering, when you decided to write a book, notwithstanding your conviction on the matter, did you formulate your model because it was novel and different from typical company lines of recovery thought? Because I do get tired of reading and hearing that addiction is for life and requires eternal vigilance, etc.--whether it's true or not doesn't have much utility to me in daily life, as all I can choose, as you allude to, is what to do today. Something different is always appreciated, especially if it can be monetized. I'd surmise you considered it (it would be tantamount to negligence if you didn't), but nevertheless, I did want to hear your thoughts *as* you formulated a model and articulated an approach, and proceeded to write about it in a way that goes against conventional thinking (not to say anything on the merits of conventional thinking).
I've tried to respond to this question without writing a darn novel, and it's hard. I'll try to keep to keep my answer as short and sweet as possible. I have been trying to write something that I thought was suitable for mass consumption to truly help people with substance use problems for 13 years. My goal was to be as accurate and helpful as possible, bottom line. I made a lot of wrong turns. I started with a lot of assumptions. I can't separate the starting point of my work fully from my personal convictions about this issue. I started after having solved my problem by rejecting all that I was taught in treatment and support groups. I had other convictions from the method that helped me. Many of these convictions were overturned, many had to be drastically revised to be more accurate, and many were fully confirmed - all as I gained more experience and did more research while trying to write something.
I developed lots of workable stuff over the years. Lots of stuff that worked very well with the people we were helping. But we didn't think it was really ready for mass consumption (to the general reader outside of our classes) until last year when we decided to publish TFM. My goal was never to just be different. It was to make the most accurate, consistent, and helpful book on the issue as possible. We think we did that, and again, don't take it lightly. It's not about being contrarian. It just so happens that from our experience and research, the way we see the issues is very contrary to the mainstream views.