Talk:Twelve-step program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.
This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
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. |
 Archives |
| 1, 2 |
[edit] Unreliable reliable source
I understand that the American Psychological Association is a reliable published source, but their summary of what is involved in the 12-step process is incomplete.
- admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion; (step 1)
- recognizing a greater power that can give strength; (step 2,3 & 11)
- examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member); (step 8)
- making amends for these errors; (step 9)
- learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior; (step 10)
- helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions. (step 12)
The list omits the inventory/admission/defect removal process of steps 4 to 7, isn't there a better source for a summary?
Mr Miles (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Their summary is accurate, "examing past errors with the help of a sponsor" is steps 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that everything we see, feel and hear is apparently interpretted by the brain, I could argue that the APA's opinion is relevant on almost anything. Having said that it is not at all clear to me why the APA is being given top billing here. Yes, psychologists work with many people in 12-step. Yet traditional 12-step approach espoused by AA is specifically non-professional. Psychologists are not directly involved with traditional 12-step (unless they themselves are working the program). Some 12-step meetings have allowed students of pyschology to sit in and observe what goes on, but I've got a hard time believing that what goes in a meeting can be studied empirically when the participants are aware they are being observed (eg. Hawthorne effect). Self-definition by twelve-steppers would also present problems I guess, at least as a sole source for a definition. I dunno, a truly unbiased definition of 12-step would be kind of difficult to obtain huh? Zedmaster375 17.33 4 May 2008 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability, the APA source is used because it meets (and exceeds) wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cultural identity
This section is confusing and seems to contain some synthesis:
The first line covers doesn't connect to the rest of the paragraph: AA is a cult and 12-step programs alter 'cultural identity' (whatever that means) respectively. Also, what is being stated has only been researched by Alexander and Rollins, the use of the word 'critics' suggests a quantity of research of which this is the best example. Also, that single piece of research has been rubbished by the Wright study of the same data. I wonder if the notability of this material is a rather too enthusiastic attempt to find some academic authority to explain that funny feeling most people have (the feeling that they're witnessing a cult) when they observe a group of AA/NA/CA members standing around holding hands and chanting prayers.
The second line is not supported by the abstract from the cite - has the full article been checked?
Mr Miles (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote the original version of the paragraph and someone took parts of it out, when drive-by editors aren't careful when they do that, references can get out of place, but having a look at it again, it seems like they're all in the right place. There is an article on cultural identity linked in the article (and now here). But, there's nothing in there that isn't supported by the sources. Email me if you want help getting to them.
- The sentence with the word 'critics' is cited to show you exactly what critics it's talking about. This tendency people have to want to essentially recreate a citation in the text of the article is horrible and makes it completely unreadable (e.g. Alexander and Rollins conducted wrote an article in 1983 that said [whatever]). Is the reader supposed to know who "Alexander and Rollins" are? Were they introduced before in the article? No. Leave the citations in the citations. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- If you've read the full article and it supports the statement, that's fine by me.
-
- My concern wasn't that the study isn't named, but rather that using a plural - critics - misleadingly suggests a body of research. I've changed it to 'one study' (leaving the cite to do its work) and added the follow up application of the same Lifton rules. Ta. Mr Miles (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as a method of recovery from alcoholism" I think not - no one actually recovers in AA - they are always in the process of recovery, but are never recover - replacing the addiction for alcohol, with the addiction for AA and their meetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.48.22 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Effectiveness and article focus
We should be systematically removing information that focuses specifically on one fellowship. This is not the article for stuff that doesn't quite fit in the AA article -- Scarpy (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
