MindfulMan

I had a friend who quit smoking by allowing himself to smoke whenever he REALLY wanted to. Kept a pack in his car just in case.

Hasn't smoked for over 25 years.

Once I stopped I really stopped UNTIL rehab, over 9 years. Picked it up for about 3 months. The whole time I was aware of how crappy they tasted, unlike the first stint, where I felt more like MG. I just didn't buy a pack one day and that was that.

AlericB

A friend's mum does something similar and carries a packet of 10 in her handbag even though she hasn't smoked for 30+ years.

I wouldn't do that myself and not just because I don't usually carry a handbag but I see why she does it which is to carry a reminder that quitting is a choice and not a deprivation.

andyh

thanks for the Trimpey / Ellis excerpt, interesting reading

horses for courses I suppose. I did the ABC's & CBA's in full in the early days, but these days if my AV pipes up I can dismiss it immediately, without having to resort to reasoning. I suspect that, in effect, it's pretty similar to AVRT, even though the path to that point has been rather different.

if someone finds they're trying to do ABC's & CBA's from the ground up each time & they're not working for them, then AVRT may well be a better choice. it's always good to have options

Algorithm

Yes, but the Beast is a rational entity, since it is merely trying to stay alive, and its Addictive Voice is therefore a rational, intelligent expression of a biological drive for pleasure, which is equated subcortically with survival. The Beast knows beyond doubt that there is only one worthwhile goal in its life -- to ensure that it gets the next fix.

It would be rather irrational for the Beast, or any other living thing, for that matter, to not try and survive, no? How exactly can you challenge a living creature's desire to stay alive?

No matter what you say to 'dispute' the AV, you are effectively telling the Beast "I want you to die. Would you please kindly agree with me, and just go away and starve, because I think that it is irrational for you to live?"

Would you buy into that? Would anyone? You are essentially trying to fight the Beast's perfect rationality with an absurd, irrational argument, while also threatening its life.

AlericB

It's not a question of which way is 'right' or 'wrong'. It's a pragmatic matter of what works for the individual.

If you can stay abstinent by challenging any conflicting thoughts and beliefs about drinking you may have then obviously that's fine for you.

If you can't resolve your conflicting thoughts through a process of disputation then you may find it useful to introduce the idea of a 'Beast' and to dissociate from it's thinking and of course that's equally fine.

There is no one way that will work best for everyone.

GerandTwine

I don’t think anyone’s questioning that a strong pleasure driven appetite drive is what we’re dealing with here. With that in mind this is not about people who “can’t resolve [their] conflicting thoughts through a process of disputation”. Algorithm just showed how he was perfectly capable of utilizing the disputation process. It’s just that the “resolving” part ends up differently because he discovered the disputation process simply doesn’t work against that appetite which is very rationally ensconced. Algorithm chose to move on with AVRT to irrationally attack and solve his drinking problem once and for all time. So, it’s not a matter of incompetency with disputation. I see it as a matter of he is not so wedded to a theory of counseling, that he can’t set it aside for a method that will allow him to spend only seconds per year, instead of wrangling with choice after choice after choice down the road as his life changes and just maybe it will be perfectly rational to try drinking again.

I’m sure MG has tried all kinds of disputation, and has resolved to adopt her Smokey the Beast’s rationality, at least for the time being. Fortunately, MG can still utilize AVRT at any time, and use the lore of addiction recovery that’s been around for centuries to immediately stop smoking forever.

GerandTwine

I would “see why she does it” quite differently, which is that possessing cigarettes has zero effect upon her life as a non-smoker since the pledge of permanent abstinence was made, however long ago.

AlericB

IMO the precise opposite is true. Once you have successfully disputed your drinking thought patterns then that's job done, at least if and until you choose change your thinking at a later date, which of course you will always have the capacity to do.

This compares to adopting the model of an eternal Beast with it's eternal bark which, to paraphrase, you will have to "wrangle with day after day after day down the road. "

AlericB

Do you know her her then? Small world!

daredevil

That's what REBT is: a theory of counseling. It wasn't designed for addiction recovery, although it can be the foundation of a recovery modality. Hence, poking holes in disputation as it relates to silencing the AV is a sophomoric endeavor that results in circular, ineffectual reasoning that neither benefits adherents nor detractors.

AlericB

Agreed. It all depends on what your starting point is.

If you start by saying that your excessive drinking has created an artificial survival drive - the Beast - which you can never eradicate, any more than you can your hunger drive, then you will always be subject to AV - the Beast's bark - which will be trying to get you to drink. However, that starting point is an assumption, not a scientifically verified, or even verifiable, fact.

You can start off with other asssumptions, e.g. that drinking is a matter of choice which you are responsible for, and if you do then you are in a whole different paradigm where concepts like the Beast and it's bark (AV) do not apply.

Recovery, like psychology, may interact with science at certain points but on the whole is more an art than a science and, I believe, always will be.

dwtbd

By this you mean that planned permanent abstinence isn't necessarily a goal ?


and re art JT thinks as well eh ? a la The Art of AVRT

dwtbd

AVRT doesn't see the AV as a threat , unless it is unrecognized. There is no need to silence it.
Making a Big Plan will 'show' you the AV, after making a BP any thought that goes against the BP is AV and all you need to do is separate from and dismiss it.
AVRT is a technique that when utilized allows for the desire and abstinence to co-exist. But without a BP there is no AVRT.

AlericB

I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course it's not necessarily a goal. We are all responsible for setting our own goals and if we decide that this is abstinence then that is our decision and it is our responsibility to achieve it.

Re. JT, he does present the structural model as a biological fact and not as a theory.

dwtbd

And the practice of his theory , he calls art

dwtbd

AVRT is about abstinence , if what one is 'after' is not necessarily permanent abstinence, AVRT isn't going to be a good fit.

And as far as I understand AVRT does not question personal responsibility in regards to the choice to drink or smoke or whatever .

AlericB

Does AVRT question your capacity for self-responsibility and freedom of choice as far as your drinking use goes by claiming it permanently removes this via the Big Plan?

AlericB

You may say 'theory' but my point is it's presented as fact.

dwtbd

I not quite sure what you are asking here, but I can say I don't absolve myself of any responsibility for my behavior(s) when I drank. Nor do I feel my responsibility for not drinking is removed by having made a BP.

I think you are asking if one decides to permanently abstain are they not actually then admitting that they do not trust themselves to drink responsibly again, ?
If the question were put to me, I think I could drink responsibly and not, but I don't drink , so the question is moot. Truth be told, even theoretic permanence throws my AV into a tizzy, lol.

dwtbd

And it is everyone's responsibility to judge for themselves everything presented to them, yeah?