FeenixxRising

Anyone can stay sober when a creepy old guy is stalking them 24/7 and yanking the drinks out their hands; however, the goal is to remain sober without the need for a creepy old guy stalking someone 24/7 and yanking the drinks from their hands.

And I don't for a minute buy the 90% success rate, and it's certainly not a long term rate. Once the creepy old guy stopped following his victims, the majority almost certainly started drinking again because they never achieved the required psychological change needed for long term sobriety.

Joe Nerv

Didn't catch this post earlier for some reason. I scored a 2. Which makes me mostly, but not completely internal. That's pretty much what I'd have guessed, also. Will check out that other article when I get a chance. Thanks for the post.

FeenixxRising

Not "tastes like", it is actual tyranny, and tyrannical bullying and domination by older AA members of newer AA members are practices you justify much too often on this site IMO.

Frankly, I would rather continue drinking than be a slave to some crusty old guy stalking me 24/7.

Joe Nerv

Aww come on... we've all been playin nice here till now. I'm not into BB thumpers myself, but I think there's a lot of great discussion going on here that I hope doesn't start straying into an ego match.

FeenixxRising

I meant what I said and I said what I meant.

Boleo's justification, endorsement and outright promotion of wildly inappropriate, tyrannical practices by AA members towards other AA members has gone unchecked on this site for far too long. It's not an ego thing; rather, I firmly believe Boleo and his ideas are downright dangerous, and I can no longer hold my tongue in good conscience.

Turtle82

Well.. there ya go... I got "7."

Turtle82

Ugh... when things get personal, I hope no one takes it personally.

Boleo

Whether Clarence was a "good-old-timer" or a "creepy-old-guy" is irrelevant. He went on to sponsor 5200+ members. There are enough of them still around to attest to his long-term rates (I have met quite a few of them myself and none of them thought of themselves as victims). His results were exceptional by ANY standards.

I myself would gladly put up with a creepy-old-guy if it got me the results that I was looking for. In my book, a milligram of results is worth a megaton of people-pleasing any day.

Sounds like something the 92% nil-result crowd would say.

Carlotta

I scored a 4 (leaning more toward internal control) and I am not really surprised.
Overall, I felt that the options were too black or white with no room for the middle way.
For example question 6:
I consider both statements to be true.
Some people just won't like you and it is what it is and it is a waste of time to engage in people pleasing or try to control/manipulate them into liking you.
Also some people just cannot get along with anyone and rather than look at themselves and their own behavior and change it accordingly, they keep on blaming others.
A better option for me would have been:
Some people will just not like you no matter what you do but if everyone hates your guts, then you are the problem.

Turtle82

I agree Carlotta. I had to pick what fit most (actually eliminating what fit least)as some didn't really fit at all. I wish there had been an "other" just to see how it would have turned out.

silentrun

I noticed that about the test too. I got a 2. I was wondering if I was biasing my answers to score low because I know the 2 questions I answered that got me the 2 points. Some of the questions I could have gone either way on I chose the answer that scored me lower.

Turtle, you might like this link. It goes against the interpretation I got from the silkworth site.
ProQuest Document View - Locus of control, self-efficacy, and spiritual coping style among members of Alcoholics Anonymous
The results suggested that belief in a Higher Power and participation in AA were not incompatible with the constructs of internal locus of control and abstinence self-efficacy for this sample. Other findings, clinical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are also explored

Soberpotamus

I scored a 2.

Pretty simplistic quiz, Ithink. I agree with others, there were many "in between" answers I'd like to have given.

silentrun

What is relevant is that you omitted information that revealed the bias of the statistic. I am not sure if that was deliberate or not.

Carlotta

For me, not engaging in people pleasing and not getting involved with crazies is part of recovery. I treasure my peace of mind and I have no problem cutting off toxic people.
I understand that these were different times but if someone talked to my neighbors, smelled my breath and basically stalked me I would have no qualms taking a restraining order against him: guru or not.
He might have been abstinent but he was acting like a controlling nut job, It's interesting that I can relate to some of the things he did:
I used to call my XABF sponsor, pop up at the meetings he was supposed to be attending and smell his breath. That was the sick old me. Someone like that has nothing that I want.
Clarence S pre screened his followers and I think that they would have stayed sober one way or another. He just cherry picked people who were very motivated and willing to do the foot work, right there it rigs the odds.
It might be argued that those guys stayed sober despite Clarence, a bit like some stay sober despite being married to a drunk.
If you sent him nowadays to your average meeting (not talking about the Atlantic group here, just run of the mill AA) with court attendees, high bottom people and people who still have some self respect, I seriously doubt he would get the same success rate.

FeenixxRising

The ends do not always justify the means, especially when those means, methods and practices are inappropriate, immoral and could cause long term psychological damage.

As far as people-pleasing, you're presenting a false dichotomy, as I never mentioned the need for "people pleasing" tactics; neither people-pleasing nor petty tyranny is necessary to help anyone achieve a quality sobriety.

But I'm out, I've stated my feelings on the matter, and I stand by my opinions.

Boleo

The facts that I omitted aren't exactly "facts" in the empirical sense but rather holes in his story that show up in even the most cursory research done over the internet today. Yes, there was some flypoop in the pepper, but there was still a record amount of pepper. Why can't we look at the principles without getting hung-up on the personality?

Even I have mixed feelings about the guy. The simple facts are; he gathered a lot of empirical data to support his 90% success rate, yet he vetted his members right from the start so as to bias his sample group. He was loved by most of his sponcee's, yet he was hated by many outside observers. He did a lot of good in the early days of AA, yet he violated a lot of Traditions in the process. Although he was not exactly a good-old-timer, he was not all bad either. Many of his sponcee's say he saved more lives than any other sponsor, including Dr. Bob. I have yet to hear even one of his 5200+ sponcee's say they felt like a victim.

IMO any method that gets results above the 8% ceiling that we have today, deserves a second look. Recovery today seems to be stuck in a rut. If we can improve the efficacy rate even as little as 1%, it could save millions of lives in the long run.

silentrun

I said information.

Boleo

You mean like what is found at the Orange P****s web site? I don't go there.

silentrun

What are you talking about? When you responded you replaced a word I used for a word I didn't and responded accordingly.

Boleo

OK. I see what you mean;

You say information. I say facts.

You see the glass half-empty. I see the glass half-full

You look for flypoop. I look for pepper.

I guess we will never see eye to eye.