Jakkolantern

I understand your point, but the answer is no. That's exactly the same logic that leads AA adherents to declare you "in denial" when you disagree with something they say.

There are "conversations" in the book that clearly never happened. There are hugely dismissive and critical parts of the book that are vastly simplistic and a little silly (none of them related to the core concepts).

I'm dismissing the wrapping - not the gift inside.

Agreed, somewhat. As I said, I think a lot of the ideas are not compiled so much as fabricated. But that doesn't concern me as long as it works.

I think you're off-base in that evaluation of me based on a single comment (explained above).

That seems fair.

RobbyRobot

Your future is certain too though, relative to not drinking, yeah?

I mean, no drinking is in your future of course because, as you say, your Big plan is just fine. No?

I'm thinking your AV is sometimes happily disguised as your bullcrap detector... any doubts experienced are in fact AV.

Just my opinion...

Jakkolantern

It might masquerade as such, but my detector has been honed over decades. I'm a skeptic in spades.

I'm sorry, we're widely divergent on this one. That's much to much a blanket statement for me to find it acceptable. It verges on the religion of AA, and I cannot and will not obviate my critical thinking to what is clearly another version of a "higher power". i.e. Immediately casting any doubt as AV because the author said so.

The skill needed is identifying what doubts are, in fact, grounded in AV, and which are doubts because the argument has an aspect that is identifiably shaky or false. A less analytical person might be able to adhere to your premise, but I'm incapable of doing so.

I should note, though, that this in no way prevents implementation of the plan in its entirety. I recognize that treating all doubts as AV first, subject to revision, is perfectly valid. Nothing is perfect, and I recognize that the Rational Recovery book is decidedly not perfect. That doesn't mean I reject the mechanisms in any way.

The big plan - "I will never drink again" - violates nothing. It's fine.

soberlicious

Jakk, I'm glad you are dismissing the wrapping, not the gift inside. My feelings about Trimpey were made known in the very first AVRT thread. I find him dogmatic and weird, and not a very hip dude. Here's the thing... it doesn't matter if I really want to end my addiction for good.

"Trimpey's an idiot. He gets under my last nerve. Good thing I am cooler and smarter than him and I can read and use AVRT to end my addiction anyway."

"Trimpey's an idiot. He gets under my last nerve. This sh*t doesn't work."

The second statement allows a tiny crack in the door for future use. Therefore, it's AV. It doesn't sound like you are allowing that to happen, so that's good. "Dismissing" the ideas because of the author...yeah the AV would be behind that. I get what you are saying, and again, I made my feeling known too, BUT the discussion is about AVRT, not JT.

I am analytical too. Since the AV plays off of one's personality, my AV is as analytical and intelligent as I am. Identifying can sometimes be tricky for the analytical...because those of us that think like that tend to always argue every point. The AV loves that. It creates cracks...fissures...tiny openings for future use.

I'm still going to stand by my statement about your bullcrap detector. If it was as finely honed as you say, it would have shut down the AV at the initial shenanigans. There would have been no addiction and certainly no progression had you called bullsh*t on it right away.

I drank after 10 years because I failed to truly understand the subtleties of identifying the AV.

I'm glad you are here and involved in the discussion.

Jakkolantern

Soberlicious, I agree with most of your post.

This is simply wrong. It oversimplifies the path taken to addiction to the point of caricature, so we're never to going to agree on it.

I think I've taken great pains in this thread to separate my observations of the book and author from my opinion of and adoption of the path.

Indeed, I'm on day 9 without issue, and fully expect to maintain it forever.

aeo1313

Why are you throwing my name out? I wasn't butting into your future was I?

Jakkolantern

Not at all. You were the original poster, and hence my original reply was for you.

I personally recommend AVRT, despite the apparent (minor) conflict on the topic.

Dalek

If that is truly the case, then fair enough. Since you didn't answer any of my questions, though, I'm not entirely sure you got my meaning. Let me rephrase for clarity:

Is your past 'performance' indicative of future 'performance' in any way?

In other words, are you building up confidence over time regarding your ability to maintain perfect lifetime abstinence?

If so, then that is Addictive Voice. Why is it AV? Because anything less than 100% confidence in your Big Plan necessarily suggests the possibility that you might not stick to it, and that you might therefore go back to drinking. This is why, with AVRT, we recognize all self-doubt regarding our Big Plan as Addictive Voice.

Empiricism won't cut it here, because the AV will naturally demand "proof" that you can and will abstain unconditionally for life as a means to undermine your confidence. Of course, there is no way to empirically prove this until after you die. AVRT will naturally identify the classic "how can you know you won't ever drink again without proof" argument as AV.

Dalek

Any doubt regarding your Big Plan is AV, not doubt about other things. RobbyRobot made this clear. He stated that it was relative to not drinking. Go back and read his post, or see the part quoted above in bold, which you deleted when quoting him, and which I re-inserted to place his statement in the proper context.

There is no real skill needed here. If it is self-doubt about your Big Plan, then it is AV.

Dalek

The author states on page 19 of Rational Recovery: The New Cure for Substance Addiction:

Trimpey has decades of experience dealing with addicted people, and therefore lots of source material at his disposal. I have watched some of his taped AVRT sessions, and the dialogue presented in the book does match his style.

AVRT is not something that 'works', it is something that you do, by looking at your hands, and realizing that the desire to drink can't move your hands and actually pour whiskey down your throat. The whole point of AVRT is that absolutely no one but yourself made the decision to drink, and that absolutely no one but yourself will keep you sober. AVRT is not treatment, where certain things are presumed to 'work' and keep people sober. AVRT is an alternative to treatment, and in the context of AVRT, nothing 'works' except you.

Jakkolantern

I'm just going to walk away from this conversation because its clear I have a very different opinion/outlook/philosophy than others here.

Dalek, I did miss that attribution where Trimpey explains that my interpretation is correct and on purpose. I withdraw the complaint. Thank you.

But seriously, arguing over the who does the work in "it works" is pedantic and unhelpful. I mean, if somebody said to me, "What do you think of running as exercise?" and I were to reply, "It works", I wouldn't think much of somebody who said, "No, no, no. You're missing the point. YOU work."

Jakkolantern

That's the thing. I didn't voice any doubt at all about my big plan.

Perhaps I misinterpreted him, but it seemed to me he was addressing all of it - the plan, the book, the trimmings.

If I did expand his point inappropriately, I apologize.

Maybe I'll clarify myself as well. When addressing the original poster, and stating that I appreciate the subject, it would be wildly inappropriate to predict my future in order to convince him, no matter how certain I am of it. I can ONLY speak to what has happened already.

My own inner narrative is my own, and I can predict as I wish.

If you want an honest answer to your question, in the vast majority of situations past performance is extremely indicative of future performance. To state otherwise would be silly.

However, I have my big plan, so "not in this case".

RobbyRobot

Honed over decades of drinking I take it? You don't presently seem to care what is or isn't AV apparently...



Interesting here again you attempt to re-define what is and isn't AV. All doubt is AV, and all the justifying in the world, for your own comfort and satisfactions, subject to your possible revisions, won't change what defines AV in AVRT.

I'm sorry, you seem to misunderstand AVRT, although I can "hear" you making a claim of a unique kind of understanding which more suits you. Actually, you speak about AV like I have heard others talk about Higher Powers... you've come to your own understanding?

The Big Plan absolutely violates the Beast something awful, truth be told. The Big Plan provides the background and contrast to enable detection of our AV no less.

This is important. A misunderstanding of AV is a critical undoing in making good use of AVRT to live a life forever free of alcohol.

The Big Plan says we will never drink again. So, there is no alcohol in my future, nor in anyone else's either, who has a Big Plan in place...

What an interesting thread.

RobbyRobot

Hmmm. You may want to re-visit what defines 'inner narrative' when seen thru the AVRT lense. AV is a natural inner narrative too, although an addictive voice. The idea is to seperate from our inner narrative what is and what isn't AV. I experience AV normally. I am not the source of AV myself, although my own thoughts are used in the creation of my AV. The Beast is the master of my AV. The distinctions are life saving, no less.

Past drinking performance has no value or standing as a predictor of future success when using AVRT to quit drinking.

soberlicious

BINGO! Critical undoing indeed...
I personally don't think this can be stressed enough.


The path to addiction is complicated?

You did. I wasn't debating the point. Just discussing. Lots of ppl besides you read this thread

freshstart57

Jakk, I am another avid reader and contributor to this forum. Please do not misunderstand our purpose here - we have our experience with our addiction and with AVRT, and want to share it. We've stepped in every pile of crap there is on our way to where we are today.

You are a most welcome addition to the team, and I hope you continue in this discussion, accepting what we offer in the spirit in which it is offered.

Jakkolantern

3 years drinking. 30 years as an annoying continuous skeptic. And you're simply wrong.

That's because the idea that everything is AV is misguided and ridiculous. Although I recognize the contention is a tool to an end.

No, only that doubt that correlates to a suggestion towards drink is AV. There is plenty of doubt about other parts of the issue that does not do so, and is based upon reasonable consideration. And yes I understand that the AV is insidious and sneaky. I'm paying attention.

Not in the least. It's clear as day.

I would suggest that anybody who paints the scene entirely in black and white is exactly mimicking the higher power ideology. I can't agree with that.

Surely.

Absolutely.

Not for one moment have I contested that. I agree.

Jakkolantern

Yep.

It's one of the aspects of the book I fundamentally disagree with. This is an example of where I do find the book overly simplistic.

But just beause I find I disagree with the complexity of the path I took versus the authors contention, it doesn't mean I disagree with the simplicity of the path forward.

Another example of accepting the gift while discarding the wrapping.

Jakkolantern

RobbieRobot, I'd like to clarify my point on "higher power" versus AVRT.

It concerns me a bit that the circular logic is so apparent in both communities.

"I don't agree with 'X' about AA, perhaps this doesn't apply to me, or I don't need a higher power." - "You're in denial, therefore your consideration doesn't count."

"I contend that you can doubt parts of the book or the author" - "That's AV talking, and you clearly don't recognize it, so your analysis doesn't count."

In my opinion, this complete exclusion of our own faculties on the basis that any disagreement must come from the AV reduces the individual every bit as much as anything AA has to offer.

My apologies for three responses in a row - I don't do that, as I prefer discussion to oration. I just didn't get to the replies last night.

I hope that everybody understands that in no way to I think less of AVRT. It is by far the most valuable thing I've encountered in a long time.

soberlicious

Or maybe we as a society are so indoctrinated to believe that addiction is complicated, mysterious, and so hard to grasp. Dunno...food for thought though for sure.

I sense that you are defensive and I'm curious why?