RE: 12-Steps and powerlessness

[Wendi K. Born]

I agree with this summary in general. I think the idea of powerlessness to control alcohol consumption is paradoxical, but can be an adaptive and effective strategy. This is especially true when you consider sample selection effects. People do not typically come to AA easily or early on in the process. After having 2 drinks, deciding whether or not to stop, or whether or not one can drive, may not be “possible.”  The alcohol often becomes part of the equation. If past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, one could easily conclude that whether or not one is “able” to control drinking behavior, it is at the very least unlikely enough to be highly improbable.   One answer is not good for everyone. Drugs do not have the same effects on everyone. Everyone does not have the same reinforcement history. Many situations can be so powerful for some people that the assumption of control is, as Paul said, irrational. In these cases, giving up the illusion of control causes people to change behaviors earlier in the chain, making new endings possible.   On another note, I was thinking earlier about William Scott’s comment about gambling and addiction. I am not sure we are very good at knowing what we mean by “addiction.”  I don’t know if what happens in the brain is different with a chemical cause and biological effect vs. a behavioral cause and effect. It seems to me like different stimuli/causes can have similar responses/effects in the brain. The following reminded me of drugs. People want a drug for the euphoria AND they want a drug to ward off the withdrawal syndrome. “A number of them state that not only does the excitement of winning encourage their gambling, but that losing also encourages their gambling as they are so determined to win back their money. So the variable ratio for the positive reinforcement of winning $$$ is operating as well as the variable ratio for the negative reinforcement of 'getting out of debt.' If I were to play the behaviorist here, I would point out that the behavior does look similar. It may be unnecessary to argue over differences in labeling - Especially when the labels we have are ill-defined, unreliable, pejorative, and encourage judgment rather than actual understanding of the problem or potential solutions. Addiction, as far as I can tell, is a term that is used to describe 1) apparently voluntary behavior that results in readily-observable undesirable effects (health, social, occupational), and 2) is repeated rigidly despite these ill effects 3) seems to result in internal reinforcement (both positive and negative) that is incredibly powerful, but difficult to observe or understand   Learning to control behaviors that fall into rigid patterns like this is always difficult, whatever the labels, causes, or effects. If giving up the belief that one can control one’s maladaptive behavior leads to decreased maladaptive behavior and increased adaptive behavior then I am inclined to believe that it is a good thing. To me, it simply suggests taking control earlier in a given process, rather than waiting until it is too late.      Wendi K. Born, Ph.D. Baker University [EMAIL PROTECTED]   From: Paul Okami [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:33 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: 12-Steps and powerlessness   Wendy Kaminer asked exactly this question in her scathing critique of the 12-step movement, "I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional."   However, the logic behind powerlessness is simple.  If one actually *is* powerless to control an addiction, as 12-step addictionology proposes, then repeatedly attempting to control addiction is a form of insanity, or at best, irrationality.  As long as one maintains the fiction that one can somehow learn to control one's behavior, no actual change can occur.  Only when one admits one's own inadequacy will one be motivated to look elsewhere, for a truly powerful source of help: the "higher power."   Paul Okami ----- Original Message ----- From: Beth Benoit To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: 12-Steps and powerlessness   I want to word this very carefully, because I have no intention of creating offense here.  This has always given me pause for thought:   How does the concept of "powerlessness" (as in, I am powerless before the power of alcohol), stated in 12-Step groups, square with our understanding of "empowerment" as a component of a healthy concept?   It's not the kind of thing on which there's probably any research, but rather in the area of philosophy of addiction.  What "step" am I missing?  I understand about the nature of addictions - or at least I do a bit - but how does admitting you have no power work to empower someone?  Semantics only, or an important philosophical difference in so-called 12-step groups?   Beth Benoit Granite State College Portsmouth NH --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]