Talk:Rational Recovery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rational Recovery article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
1


[edit] POV

Hey Ark, I appreciate the addition of this article but it kinda reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. Could you maybe bring this entry closer to NPOV (you know, that pesky policy we have around here). I know this is hard sometimes, but it does make for better articles. Happy hacking! --maveric149

Probably because it started as an ad, which I brutally hacked into something I thought resembled an entry. The sum total of what I knew about RR before I saw the AA page was that it exists and has a lower recividism rate than AA. I'll try to hack it further; you're welcome to join in btw.-- Ark

I will give you a chance to hack it first and I will get to it later myself -- sounds interesting, I never heard of them before (and have always personally despised AA for its unnecessary religiosity -- but that's just my personal opinion and I will try to not let that get in the way). --maveric149

Thanks for the compliment. I hacked it a lot more and I think it's close to NPOV but I better leave the fine-tuning to someone else. Personally, I've despised AA for submission to authority. Of course, religiosity practically implies hierarchical power. -- Ark

Ark - If you despise AA, could you please see to it that all of the secular groups get the same standing on Wikipedia as does AA, please. I don't "despise" AA. It works for those for whom it works. But for those low in religiosity, according to the resent Walsh Group Survey, they will not go to AA and the secular groups help people every bit as much as the AA support groups do according to that study. So how about reinstating the SMART Recovery page, the SOS and LifeRing pages and the Moderation Management page so that everyone can know about all of the options. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, but it seems to only cover AA and other 12-Step groups which are all free, and RR which is a for profit corporation run by JackTrimpey and Louis Trimpey. AND yes, of course the Trimpey page should be incorporated into the RR page, if you keep the RR page which is advertising for a private for profit that is not really proven to work (see Handbook of Alcholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives 3rd edition by Reid K. Hester and William R Miller, 2003) which reviews What Works in chapter 2 based on a meta-analysis of the current research and offers a review of all the self-help groups and not just AA.Henrysteinberger 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Henrysteinberger

I read the first version of the article and since that version everything I had issues with you have removed. The article now reads as being factual and comprehensive (again I don't know anything about this so I can't say if this stuff is actually factual -- it just reads as being written from a neutral point of view). The only thing missing now is some mention of any significant skepticism that others have for this group and its practices. But that can come later -- I'm sure somebody from AA will do that eventually. --maveric149

I put in a note about non-religious AAers. Relevance is tangential; I won't fight if others think it's irrelevant or out of context here. Vicki Rosenzweig

What about the costs of RR? The site offers rather expensive online subscriptions [1], videos and a course. "RR-Live!, a set of ten videos (12 hours) showing AVRT-based recovery with a live subject, will be a prerequisite to enroll in AVRT: The Course." [2] In the wikipedia article I'd expect more details about the approach, the history, a sponsoring organisation (is there one?), the relationship to the non-profit spin-off SMART [3],... -- 145.254.53.235 14:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much hate all authority, especially religious authority. I used to be an anarcho-capitalist (libertarian), but I grew wary of the lack of humanitarian and environmental concern, so now I'm a liberal (leftist)---not because of a sudden rash of altruism, but because I wish to be as objectively egoistic as possible. From what I've read, RR reminds me ALOT of very hyper-individualist, secular capitalist (libertarian) groups like Scientology and Neo-Tech who seem to see relentless criticism, badgering, and beating-up on oneself as essential to recovery. Not all atheists or rationalists are rugged individualists, and not all individualists need to be rationalists or capitalists. Shanoman 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if they do charge significant fees, any inclusion of that fact in the Wikipedia article should also reflect that RR writings contain a clear tone of ridicule toward addicted individuals. Here's an example from their homepage: "There are no Rational Recovery groups anywhere in the world! Your desire for 'support' is nothing more than a plan to get loaded in the absence of support." Also see the "...200-word description of AVRT [Addictive Voice Recognition Technique], providing enough information for you to end your addiction, right now" (here). Vorpal Suds 4 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that RR quote that suggests anyone is being ridiculed. RR is NOT AA so the AA people would do well to stop freaking out that RR does not resemble AA in any way. There is nothing immoral or wrong about charging money nor is there anything wrong with RR not having free meetings. RR would be the first ones to say if you want AA then go to AA. We need to keep the AA bias out of this article. Mr Christopher 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule is subjective, and I don't see how this would fit into an encyclopedia article. It certainly is a criticism of support groups, but it's no secret that the present-day RR opposes support groups, especially AA. --Nike 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule is indeed subjective, which is why it would be a very good idea to put this quotation in the article, in place of the IMO highly irrelevant one on the subject of capital punishment. If RR opposes support groups, that is worth mentioning. --Townmouse 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This deserves research, so I have done some.[4] RR (i.e. Trimpey) actually does not oppose "support groups", because he makes a distinction between "recovery groups" and "support groups". The latter are OK, so long as they're not 12-step and don't have long-term membership. The former he characterizes as "dependency groups" or "cults". On RR's home page it states, "AVRT has made recovery groups obsolete." Since RR's opposition to recovery groups is so often stated, it should be mentioned in the article, IMHO.

The entire section just added titled Criticism is irrelevent IMO also, as well as POV and unsourced, and should be reverted. --Nike 11:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nike. Yeah a good, supported and cited criticism section would be appropriate but what you removed did not fit that criteria. Mr Christopher 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If RR were antithetical to AA in every regard then they would be actively encouraging alcoholics to drink. I changed the wording. Fire Star 05:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the RR article reads like an ad with repetion of the organization's name throughout. Further, the article uses primary sources like the RR FAQs rather than secondary sources. Finally this article's notability is based on citations from before 1992 when RR still offered free self-help groups (which they now condemn) and based its program on REBT which Jack himself used to stop his own drinking problems leading him to start the RR program as a reaction to AA which he as an atheist (and I'd say anti-theist which is OK by me) could not abide. The research cited as supporting RR (Gallantner's one big study) didn't support RR as it exists today but the the proto-SMART Recovery which was RR from its founding in 1986 until it dropped the groups in the mid 1990's when they could not be sold as a franchise operation (which is not noted to my knowledge in any of the RR literature, but was well known to all who were approached by Jack at that time).

How can I see that this comment is taken seriously and leads to a change in the RR article? Where is the proper site for this discussion? My big kvetch is that RR and AA are treated differntly than SMART Recovery and I think I've made the point clear here that they are allowed to use advertising formats and even more unfairly, RR gains its notability based on its early, proto-SMART Recovery, history when its methods and program were what SMART Recovery assumed and what RR (which kept the name RR ceded by the BoD that resigned to not waste resources) now entirely rejects and condemns.Henrysteinberger (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the helpme tag, as they are for use on user talk pages. However, to answer your question, you should read through WP:RFC#Request comment on articles and WP:PR and chose the option that best fits your request. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Henry - I'm not sure why you're afraid to edit articles, or expect other people do to it for you. The best thing to do is to collect sources that support your points, edit the article, and cite said sources when you do. You can do this not only with the Rational Recovery article, but also with the SMART Recovery article.
At any rate, questionable sources, such as the RR faq, are allowed under some circumstances. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality on Religiousity and Sobriety

I removed the POV that said "RR remains neutral" and changed it to "RR claims to remain neutral," and believe the edit should stand unless someone can provide a source by someone other than the founder of the organization stating that they remain neutral on such matters. The quote above from the founder regarding court filings they have made as the "conscientious objectors" suggests that the organization is not neutral on the issue; other quotes from the founder demonstrate outright hostility towards the concept of the combination of sobriety and religiosity in recovery.Lucida.ann (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the RR position is that the compelled participation in a religious program is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion. That position has regularly triumphed in court, where AA's claim that it is "spiritual, not religious" has faired very poorly. I do not see how you can say that there is a suggestion that that position somehow makes them "not neutral". Were I an agnostic, atheist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, a follower of Shinto, or Eastern Orthodox practicioner, I would NOT want to be compelled to attend a group whose main writings are clearly a self-styled form of Protestantism, and be repeatedly told there that I had to conform or I would likely die. Would a Christian like to be compelled to attend recovery meetings at a radical fundamentalist Islamic program and be told that? RR's position is neutral due to the fact that individuals of all religious persuasion (including secular) receive equal respect for their choice (in that the matter just does not come up as a part of the RR approach). RR's filings are in support of freedom of religion (you know, that thing in the Constitution) as opposed to mandatory Protestantism. And I believe the onus is on you to prove that RR has not proven neutral on religion when in fact their actions prove them in defense of freedom of religion. The "claims to" is thusly removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.145.141 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by the organization's founder have expressed outright contempt for the combination of religiousity and sobriety. The statement contains POV and is not sourced. I think the best resolution, rather than a revert war, is to put the argument up for mediation and let more experienced editors weigh in. I am sure you would want the best outcome and the most accurate article possible. Again, I am not asking the article to state that RR is hostile towards religion and sobriety, but simply to remove the bias and instead write "RR claims to remain neutral" rather than "RR remains neutral." There is a difference.Lucida.ann (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote that is being used to support the claim that "RR is neutral on the issue of religiosity and sobriety" is: "RR founder Jack Trimpey explains, '...RR is not interested in having people give up any of their religious beliefs; it's just none of our business what people believe about gods and saints. The only exception here, of course, is when one is 'depending' on a rescuing deity in order to remain sober. If that is one's preference, then AA is an ideal program.'" That quote demonstrates implicit hostility towards the combination of religiosity and sobriety - for more accurate reference, the statement "the only exception here of course is when one is depending on a rescuing deity in order to remain sober. If that is one's preference, then AA is an ideal program." That says "anyone who depends upon a god for sobriety is not welcome in our program." That is not neutrality on religiosity and sobriety. Maybe someone can find another quote without outright hostility towards the concept, to support inclusion of such a statement.Lucida.ann (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

A review of the recent edits indicates that the following three phrases have been proposed:

  • RR remains neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
  • RR states that the organization remains neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
  • RR claims to remain neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.

Of the three, the phrase "RR states that the organization remains neutral" is preferable. As noted above, the phrase "RR remains neutral" implys that wikipedia is making the statement and taking a position in the neutrality of RR. Similarly, the phrase "RR claims to remain neutral" implies that wikipedia is making the statement and taking a position on the neutrality of RR. Only the phrase "RR states that the organization remains neutral" makes it clear that this is the position maintained by the RR organization. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that edit - and I agree with the rationale behind it. Lucida.ann (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)