Aa history Lovers 2006 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page
Yüklə 13,83 Mb.
|
| IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
One of our AAHistoryLovers, reference librarian Charlie C., has come up with exactly the kind of information I was looking for: ___________________________________ Obituary in the New York Times, January 30, 1975, p. 37. KITCHEN -- Victor Constant, son of the late Dr. and Mrs. J. M. W. Kitchen of East Orange, N.J., born New York City, April 9, 1891, died at home in Cabool, Missouri, Jan. 29, 1975. Husband of Elsie Rodman Kitchen, father of Beverly K. Almond of Bloomfield, N.J., Myra K. Prindle, Redding, Conn., Hope K. Ayer, Cabool. Nine grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. Attended Carteret Academy, East Orange High School, Stevens Institute of Technology, Columbia School of Journalism. Advertising executive, Doyle, Kitchen and McCormick, N.Y.C. Since 1934, full time with Oxford Group and Moral Re-Armament. Author of the book, "I Was A Pagan." Gathering of gratitude at his home, Route 2, Cabool, Mo., 3 P.M., Saturday, Feb. 1. Eventual interment, Gilmantown, N.H. In lieu of flowers, family suggests remembrance to Up With People, 3103 No. Campbell Ave., Tucson, Ariz. 85719. ___________________________________ This information was in response to Message 3305, from Glenn C., on "V. C. Kitchen and the Oxford Group" "I have been doing research on one of the important Oxford Group books, V. C. Kitchen's "I Was a Pagan," for a book which I am writing .... If any members of the AAHistoryLovers can provide me with any additional information about V. C. Kitchen's life, I would greatly appreciate it." IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3316. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Joe and Charlie tapes online From: Doug B. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/10/2006 9:19:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Billy-Bob and Jim, The Joe and Charlie Big Book studies that I have attended in the past were nothing like you suggested in your response. They were keeping it very simple and didn't seem to be on any crusade except that of actually having you read the book for yourself.
message has changed? Doug B. Riverside, CA (dougb at aahistory.com) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3317. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Joe and Charlie tapes online From: serenityodaat . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/12/2006 11:29:00 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Hiya Jim! This is from the foreword to the second edition of "Alcoholics Anonymous": "While the internal difficulties of our adolescent period were being ironed out, public acceptance of A.A. grew by leaps and bounds. For this there were two principal reasons: the large number of recoveries, and reunited homes. These made their impressions everywhere. Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried, 50% got sober at once and remained that way; 25% sobered up after some relapses, and among the remainder, those who stayed on with A.A. showed improvement. Other thousands came to a few A.A. meetings and at first decided they didn’t want the program. But great numbers of these - about two out of three - began to return as time passed." - page xix and xx When I sum this text up I get a recovery rate of approx. 90%. And this is A.A. in general. The Cleveland area showed a 100% recovery rate for a long period of time. Kindest Regards from Sweden with Love! Anders B
______________________________
there are many) we're trying to keep away from just people giving their opinions on things, no matter how heartfelt their convictions. This message however centers on a question of fact. Anders has cited a quotation from the foreword to the Big Book, and that involves a matter of historical fact. One can also come up with a number of other statements from the early period saying things quite similar to this. The key question is, what does the above statement actually mean, factually? The crucial clause in the passage which Anders quoted is one which people often overlook: "Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried." Go back and read that quotation from the foreword to the Big Book, and notice that phrase.
"really tried" got sober. But how many does it write off as people who didn't "really try"? There is one place where Bill W. says that 3 or 4 out of every 5 people who came to their AA meetings, decided after just a few meetings that this program was not for them, and disappeared.
(4 out of 5) disappeared after a short period of time, because "they didn't really want to try," there were only 20% left after that point. If only 50% of these actually got sober, that was a success rate of only 10%, if we calculate these figures the way they are calculated in analyzing modern AA statistics. Arthur S. and Tom E. have been going through all the early data which they can find, and they have come to the conclusion that early AA almost certainly had a much better than 10% success rate. Bill Wilson was probably being overly pessimistic when he said that 3 or 4 out of every 5 people disappeared after a few meetings. But we have a large number of statements from the early period making it clear that they were also most definitely not achieving anything nearly approaching a 50% success rate, if we count all parts of the U.S. and Canada, and everybody who had some kind of brief contact with AA.
best analysis of that data that I have seen is the one which was given in Message 2379, which I attack to the bottom of this posting. Just like in early AA, we have large numbers of people in the modern period who come to a few meetings, but then disappear. Nowadays, 53% of the people who come to a few AA meetings do not make it through to the end of their third month. But of those who do make it past the three month mark, 56% of those will be able to make it successfully through their first year.
oranges. The early AA figures, as in the passage which Anders quotes, regularly make the claim that 50% of those who "really tried" ending up being able to stay sober the first time through the program. That is quite correct. By comparison, the modern AA figures show that 56% of those who start attending AA meetings and make it past their first three months -- these are the ones whom the old timers would say "really tried" -- end up making it successfully to the end of their first year.
kind of basic success rate, both then and now, a roughly 50% success rate back then among those who "really tried," and a roughly 56% success rate now among those who "really tried."
______________________________ Message 2379 From: ny-aa@att.net Date: Mon May 9, 2005 11:56 am Subject: Success vs. Gloom-and-Doom
56% of those who stay three months are still active in AA at the end of a year. That first year is the hardest: the retention rates dramatically improve for those who have earned their one-year chip. The current U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau) is 296 million, with around 220 million over eighteen years of age. In the data given below, the NIAAA estimates that roughly 8% of the U.S. population over age 18 abuse alcohol (17.6 million out of 220 million), but that there are only 7.9 million true alcoholics over eighteen years of age in the U.S., which is 3.6% of the population over eighteen years of age. With roughly 1 million AA members, that means that around 12 to 13% of these genuine alcoholics (about one out of eight) is in AA at this point.]
a pessimistic view of A.A. today. This becomes the basis for advocating return to the practices of some time in the past. Often, they back this up with a misreading of one particular graph in a summary of the 1977 through 1989 Triennial Surveys. "Percent of Those Coming to AA Within the First Year Who Have Remained the Indicated Number of Months." It graphed the "Month" and "Dist" (distribution) columns here. Note the "Dist" column adds up to 100. It is NOT a retention percentage. For every 100 people surveyed with under a year, 13% were in their 2nd month and 9% were in their 4th month. The "New" column I added is scaled to show retention. The "3mo" column tracks retention after the usual introductary period when, presumably, only "real alcoholics" (about half) will stay.
1 ... 19 ... 100 2 ... 13 .... 68 3 ... 10 .... 53 4 .... 9 .... 47 . 100<=== Over 3 months 5 .... 8 .... 42 .. 89 6 .... 7 .... 42 .. 83 7 .... 7 .... 36 .. 77 8 .... 6 .... 34 .. 72 9 .... 6 .... 32 .. 68 10 ... 6 .... 30 .. 64 11 ... 6 .... 28 .. 60 12 ... 5 .... 26 .. 56
out in a month." Dist(3)=10 does NOT mean that "90% leave within three months." And Dist(12)=5 does NOT mean that "95 abandon active participation in AA inside of a year." What it does show is that 56% of those who stay three months are still active in A.A. at the end of a year. Other Survey results show substantially better retention rates after the first year. Here is a typical example of misinterpretation of the table. > "Those of us who have survived in A.A. for a > good many years know for a certainty the dire > failure statistics of today -- statistics reported > by A.A.'s own service structure: > 81% of new members drop out in a month; > 90% leave within three months; and > 95% abandon the active participation in AA inside > of a year." That's just not true. Another misreading of statistics is to forget that not everyone who shows up at an A.A. meeting is an alcoholic. And not everyone with "a drinking problem" is an alcoholic (yet) either. For example, in 2002 the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism said that there were 9.7 million "alcohol abusers" and 7.9 million "alcohol dependent people" over age eighteen. There are clear definitions for these two categories. Only the 7.9 million are what A.A. calls "real alcoholics." These NIAAA numbers are misquoted as:
> AAs at any given time out of an estimated > eighteen million alcoholics in all."
"a certain type of hard drinker." Further, most alcoholics have never tried or even visited Alcoholics Anonymous and have never made any serious attempt at recovery through any other means. With that in mind, one million sober American AAs is rather impressive. It also shows the need to reach out and invite more alcoholics to try Alcoholics Anonymous. Let's hope the pessimistic message of gloom-and-doom doesn't scare away and discourage the rest of those who need help. ------------------------------- [ADDITIONAL NOTE BY MODERATOR: In early AA, they often said that 50% of those (as they put it) "who made a serious effort" in AA got sober the first time they tried. Careful reading of the early documents and interviews with old timers makes it clear that they were not counting those who came to a few meetings but then fizzled out when they gave their 50% success rate. When early groups gave their membership figures, they usually made a rough-and-ready but clear distinction between the numbers of those at their weekly meetings who were just coming to a few meetings at that point and the numbers of those who were much more committed members. So early success rates were not actually all that much different from the present success rate. AA is still extraordinarily effective today, just as it was in the old days, particularly when we remember that alcoholism has always been the third leading cause of death in the United States ever since the 1930's: a fifty percent remission rate for what is frequently a fatal disease is medically impressive by any standards.] IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3318. . . . . . . . . . . . The Exact Quote from Francis Hartigan''s Book In Regard To Early AA''s Success From: backtobasicsbillybob . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/12/2006 1:50:00 PM
give up. Today the nations best treatment centers report success rates ranging from 25 percent to 50 percent. During Bill's stay in Akron, he and Bob calculated their success rate to be about 5 percent, and among the few who seemed to catch on, not all of them were able to maintain consistent sobriety. The first edition of AA's Big Book, published in 1939, contains the personal recovery stories of many of AA's earliest members. Some years later, Bill made notations in the first copy of the book to come off the press, indicating which of the individuals portrayed therein had stayed sober. A good 50 percent had not." Francis Hartigan, Bill W., Pages 91-92 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3319. . . . . . . . . . . . The Exact Quote From Dr. Bob''s Memorial Service, Nov. 15th, 1952 From: backtobasicsbillybob . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/12/2006 2:18:00 PM
you had to cull over hundreds of these drunks to get a handful to take the bait. Yes, the discouragement's were very great but some did stay sober and some very tough ones at that." Bill Wilson, Dr. Bob's Memorial Speech, Nov. 1952, At The 24th Street Club in New York City, New York. To Thine Own Self Be True, Billy-Bob IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3320. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Use of Dash in First Step From: Ernest Kurtz . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/10/2006 2:28:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Messages from Ernest Kurtz, James Blair, Tim T., Mackley, Robert Stonebraker, and mrjocisoo7 on the dash used as punctuation in the middle of the first step. ______________________________ From: Ernest Kurtz (kurtzern at umich.edu)
Bill commented in several letters, usually to individuals inquiring about the distinction between "defects of character" and "shortcomings" in Steps Six and Seven, along the lines that he had no such ideas in mind as he wrote those Steps, but that he thought it wonderful that people found so much in them. My reading of some of the drafts of Bill's AAGV articles, later collected in *The Language of the Heart,* inclines me to suspect he would have said something similar about portions of the AA Big Book.
______________________________ From: James Blair (jblair at videotron.ca) What is historical about the proper use of English grammar? Bill may not of been up there with Einstein but he did have some command of the English language.
thought) - (new thought) that our lives had become unmanaageable."
the white stuff alone. Jim ______________________________ From: Tim T. (pvttimt at aol.com) Tim T., here, an alky. How interesting! My grand-sponsor Bob Anderson "ran" our meeting in which I got sober finally in 1978. At the time he had 25 years, having sobered up in Cleveland in 1953. His sponsor was an iceman named Ed S. who in turn sobered up on the Cleveland-Akron AA axis. Bob has been dead for 7-8 years now, having finished his aa career in southern California.
exactly in the big book, but he claimed was the "original" way it was taught in the early days in northern Ohio. It included his description of the "dash in the First Step!" And he taught us just as you described it! Another bit of "original" lore he taught us was that the Second Step is found in the big book between the ABC's and the Third Step prayer. Right after the ABC's it says: "Being convinced, we were at Step Three, which is that we decided to turn our will and our life over to God as we understood Him. Just what do we mean by that, and just what do we do?" Bob taught us that this means that in order to be convinced, we must work Step Two, and that the discussion that follows is therefore Step Two. Then, just before the Third Step prayer, it says, "We were now at Step Three." Bob would say to us, "How can you NOW be at Step Three, if what went before wasn't Step Two?" And it kind of all made sense to us, how the preceding discussion about running the show, being the director, selfishness and self-centeredness, troubles of our own making, etc, etc, was largely a description of the insanity of Step Two. His point was that our thinking is still screwed up even when we are dry. Made sense to me. And it was very helpful to me in working through my early sobriety. I guess those of us around today will never really appreciate the apparent wide diversity of opinion and approaches taken in the early days. One also has to remember that there weren't very many at that time. I'd imagine that some millions of folks have come in, stayed, gone back out, whatever over the last 70-ish years. It makes this forum valuable in appreciating that wide range of opinions.
Tim.
______________________________ mackleyhome@aol.com (mackleyhome at aol.com) Tommy, I suggest that you check a high school English Text for that time period. You might well find that the ninth punctuation mark was the DASH. It's most common usage was to indicate "end of complete thought" DASH or -- "beginning of new and somehow related thought." It was on having this pointed out to me that I realized for the first time that my life was unmanageable because of my drinking, not the reverse. As to Bill's education, didn't he had two advanced degrees?
Rayville LA. ______________________________
(rstonebraker212@insightbb.com) Dear Tommy, Your point is well taken on Bill's punctuation skills at but it is good to remember that other well educated (in writing) people had to do with the changing from the ‘final draft' to the first printing, first edition, Big Book, e.g.:
over to Tom Uzzell. He was a friend of Hank P, an editor at Collier's and a member of the NYU faculty. The manuscript was variously estimated as 600 to 1,200 pages (including personal stories). Uzzell reduced it to approximately 400 pages. Most cuts came from the personal stories, which had also been edited by Jim S (The News Hawk) a journalist from Akron, OH. (AACOA 164, BW-FH 126, PIO 203)
(AACOA 167-168 NG 67-77) The dash: I have always thought the dash simply completes the sentence, e.g.: "She was very smart - she got straight ‘A's"
the fact my life may be unmanageable today has little to do with the fact that I drank alcoholically a long time ago. Thanks for the subject, Bob S, from Indiana ______________________________
(mrjocisoo7 at aol.com) The detailed study of the big book allows us to really stay busy. But also help us target the very book that has helped millions of people. I am pro study in detail. It helps centers me. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3321. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Question about Clyde Bertram "Freeman" From: John Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/10/2006 2:16:00 PM
about six or seven years ago...I was most struck by his ability (need?) to recite "How it Works" from memory. He was then more than 50 years sober. He was also pitching his book, which didn't carry his real name due to the anonymity tradition. I believe he was a carpenter through most of his drinking, and became a certfied addiction counselor after he got sober.
> Again," written under the pen name of "Freeman." > It is signed in the front "Clyde Bertram, 'Freeman'". > No date on it, it is a story of getting sober in AA. > > Information? > > > Jean Cottel > jcottel@earthlink.net > (jcottel at earthlink.net) Yüklə 13,83 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|