This does seem to be inevitably headed towards another your-method-is-wrong-because-it's-not-my-preferred-method-of-choice, if I've got the word right, exchange.

We all know that's not going to be constructive and it's also going to mean that the intention of this thread which is a discussion of the Freedom Model is going to be lost.

So could I please ask that we get back to the original topic?

The Freedom Model for Addictions

That is the topic of this thread. Stay on topic please.
If you want to discuss another topic start a thread.

I agree. I meant it in the first sense - happy about not being a drinker.

Further to this, the model doesn't believe that unhappiness is a "cause of" people drinking. There's a chapter called "Learned Connections" and this is a term the authors use to describe the relationship between what we think are the causes of our drinking, such as unhappiness, and our drinking itself.

It seems commonsensical to say that some people who are unhappy would drink if they think that would give them some level of happiness at least for a while. But that is not the same as saying that their unhappiness is "causing" them to drink - happy people drink too because they believe it will make them even happier.

So, the model says, being happy or unhappy are not causes or reasons to drink. Rather, the reason to drink is the same for both happy or unhappy people: to be happier than they currently are (the PDP)

in post #12 the OP:
" The Positive Drive Principle (PDP)
The authors say that one of the key ideas of the model is the Positive Drive Principle, or PDP for short, and they define it simply as a drive to pursue happiness.

They say this about the PDP in the book:

We consider the following observation to be self-evident: every single person, in everything they do, is just trying to achieve/maintain a happy existence.
As simple as that statement is, it's turned out to be the most important insight we've had over the past three decades of running our retreats. It's important for understanding heavy substance use habits, and it's important for making changes in substance use habits. We call it the Positive Drive Principle or PDP for short, and define it simply as a drive to pursue happiness. We definitely aren't the first to make this observation. Great thinkers over the ages have noted it frequently.


In more personal terms perhaps they they also describe it like this:

From our beginnings of helping people almost 30 years ago, our approach has had a single defining theme in the pursuit of happiness. We have shown people that if they can develop the conviction that a change to their substance use habits will produce greater happiness, then they will happily, easily, and permanently change their habits for the better. They will get “unstuck” and move on. That is the natural way of personal change."

My questions/comments/criticisms with this principle are centered on how they deal with or if they deal with the more visceral aspects of intoxication. Their principle seems , to me at least based on the information provided in this thread, targets a person's estimation of their future happiness given they accept a lifestyle change. An estimation the authors presume every one would make given a rational and reasoned estimation of their current circumstances and how a change in their use habits would facilitate their happiness going forward.
That the recovery industry has fabricated the falsehood of 'addiction' as a disease or condition which 'makes' them stay stuck simply because they fail to recognize they would in fact be happier by choosing to see that a lifestyle change would bring that happiness and to let go of the idea that their current lifestyle is a path to that end.

But how do they reconcile not being able to get high , that moment (?) when an individual realizes the last high was just that, the very last time that(those) sensation(s) were the last time they would ever experience it?

Speaking for myself I always knew being free of the negative consequences of self intoxication would be a happier existence, just for the fact of not experiencing the negatives, but that in and of itself didn't stop the desire for intoxication.

I don't see this principle as a way to quit, it seems like a good round about way to feel happy about having quit( end an addiction) , I just can't see this principle working as a course of action to ensure never getting the chance to get high again.

A well reasoned post Dwtbd, regarding the desire (latent?) which is a relevant question. I’m still reading the book; I’m hoping to encounter mention of their equivalent of the AV. I shan’t conjecture. Once I finish the book, I’ll report back.

tatsy
While I always appreciate a well reasoned criticism, this thread is about the OP topic and should continue without reference to any 'method' specific nomenclature(trade marked or otherwise :) ) other than that of the Model, others would agree I'm sure.

No worries, the term AV isn’t specific, in fact it’s universal on SR, because folks throughout all sub-forums in SR (particularly Newcomers and Alcoholism) use the abbreviation, to include AAers.

I disagree. the point of the thread is to discuss The Freedom Model method & as such, comparing & contrasting to other methods, or using their terminology to illustrate a concept, especially where that terminology has become somewhat generic, is quite acceptable so long as it is done in a constructive & non-judgmental manner.

The book talks about this guy B. F. Skinner and his ideas about psychology and how that's what a lot of conventional recovery method are about.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/ope...ditioning.html

I believe Principal Skinner from The Simpson's is based on this guy too haha.

I stand corrected, any thoughts on #65 ?

They definitely recognize both the physical and mental aspect of pleasure from all drugs. Their whole philosophy is about changing the mind. You are what you think. I'm only on chapter 5, but this is from chapter 2.

I've only read the extracts from the Freedom Model book, but from what I've read it seems to be broadly in step with the SMART choice-based philosophy, with which I am familiar, so I'll comment from that perspective, or at least my experience of it.

SMART uses techniques borrowed from Motivational Interviewing to have the person contemplating abstinence take a rational look at their situation & assess the short- & long-term up- & down-sides to either continuing with the addictive behaviour or abstaining from it.

If a choice of abstinence is made, then there are a number of REBT/CBT-based tools to reinforce that choice. The desired end-state really is to be glad to be abstinent & genuinely to not feel any deprivation from no longer participating in your former addictive behaviour of choice.

This all works very nicely for me, along with some other bits & pieces from mindfulness & similar. I totally get that it may not be for everyone, we're not all wired the same, which is why I'm glad there are other secular methods out there (AVRT) to suit others, & can appreciate their merits, even if they don't strike the same chord with me.

The excerpt posted by BJ really aligns with my quit first, last and always stance.

I’m a hardcore quitter , that’s my perspective, I always point out anything that seems/sounds like anything other than Quitting(aka AV).

My comments were aimed at the ideas , concepts as explained , implications and connotations that feel like they are trying to smuggle in some hidden AV,I’m antiAV :)

How can there be "smuggling" of AV, hidden or otherwise, in a model that treats people like adults and leaves the choice of substance use up to you? And this is just being real and honest because of course the choice is up to you, no-one else can make it for you and if they did you wouldn't be committed to it anyway.

The purpose of AV is to direct you in a particular direction, that of drinking again, and so the whole idea of AV really has no relevance in this model because nothing influences you in any direction other than your own beliefs and choices.

Since the AV cannot be fully understood without the Structural Model of Addiction, and since the Freedom Model is completely independent of the Structural Model, I think it’s safe to say, the Freedom Model of recovery’s ongoing internal evaluation of what type of alcohol intake will make me happiest, is the equivalent of the Structural Model’s ongoing re-cognition of the Addictive Voice popping up here and there in harmless thoughts and feelings.

Try real hard right now to NOT think of pink elephants. Some thoughts and feelings will arise without personal control, simply by being conscious and within society. They are totally harmless, when categorized and not acted upon, pigeon-holed back into animal land.

I don't think there is an equivalence because you wouldn't be constantly evaluating what type of intake will make you the happiest. Once you've made a considered opinion on what would be your best option you may decide to change this at some later date but it wouldn't be a continuing thing that you do.

The AV, on the other hand, in the Structural Model is the bark of the enduring and eternal Beast and therefore does need a life-long and ongoing process of recognition and separation.

In the Structural Model, AV is the sole cause of addiction which you can't control whereas in the Freedom Model the cause of addiction is holding onto the addict-self image which you can let go of once you see it for what it is.

So I wouldn't say it's that the Freedom Model doesn't understand AV but rather that AV is not an explanatory concept that it uses. The models have some similarities but also differences and there is not always a correspondence between the ideas in the two models.

How long do they instruct we wait? I think Moderation Management instructs 30 days.

I’ve calculated that since my leaving the recovery group movement, I have spent about 1 second per month on that process. It is very similar to the amount of time I’ve spent on the life-long process of recognition and separation of my hand from the red part of the stove top, or from that attractive derrière of the woman stranger next to me on the crowded bus. Actually, let me take that last one back. I think I’ve spent about ... well ... a bit longer on that process of recognition and separation.

I noticed The Freedom Model is being discussed here. I'd gladly answer any questions about it.

Welcome to SR Steve :)