Here's a scholarly statement from the enclosed: "Just like most of AA's
tenets, Jellinek's work has no validity whatsoever." Wow what a dramatic
exposition of the problem. Come on now! Is the subject fudging? Is the
subject fraud? Is the subject Jellinek? Is the subject A.A.'s tenets? Has
the subject somehow now become the equating of Jellinek's work with "AA's
tenets." Time to move on or get clear about the subject. Dick B.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robin Room
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Jellinek's troubled c.v.
Dave --
Actually, long before Ron got into questions of J's biography, he
published a piece demonstrating pretty clearly that Jellinek fudged the data
in deriving the Jellinek formula. ROIZEN-R; MILKES-J. THE STRANGE CASE OF
THE JELLINEK FORMULA'S SEX RATIO. J. STUD. ALC., 41: 682-692, 1980.
Robin
________________________________
From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society on behalf of Dave Trippel
Sent: Mon 27/03/2006 12:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Jellinek's troubled c.v.
I wonder how often this sort of censorship takes place in a way that may
influence the evolution of an academic field - beyond the obvious example of
alcohol researchers' twelve step membership likely "remain[ing] inside the
protected province of alcohol researchers".
I also wonder if there's been an unbiased study of any biasing influence of
AA members upon alcohol studies/research, if such a thing is possible.
In the case of Jellinek, the time lapse between the infraction (or even his
death) and its discovery/outing (declassification) has been long enough to
overcome any and all criticism of whistle blowing. I guess the question is,
if he lied about that, could he have fudged some data.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Roizen <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Jellinek's troubled c.v.
... should have remained inside the protected province of alcohol
researchers, as a kind of "insider knowledge" that is not allowed to sully a
revered scientist in a field still struggling for scientific legitimacy.
...
Thanks.
Ron Roizen
________________________________
From: Academic and Scholarly Discussion of Addiction Related Topics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of No Name Available
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Does any one know anything about this - AA works for a
few people
I wonder how many people who've heard of Jellinek found out that he
was a fraud? He claimed to possess a PhD but in fact had attended college
for less than a year.
At the time he claimed to have been awarded his degree, all German
and Austrian universities had excluded Jews (he was Jewish), and he wouldn't
have been permitted in their buildings, let alone awarded a degree.
He later claimed that all records of his academic work had been
destroyed in the war, and was able to advance his fraudelent career as a
'researcher'.
His Jellinek Curve has nothing to do with the progression of
alcoholism for most people, and his 5 types of alcoholics could have been
described by any observant bartender or minister.
Just like most of AA's tenets, Jellinek's work has no validity
whatsoever.
In a message dated 3/23/06 5:44:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I wonder how many of the folks who spout about
alcoholism/alcohol dependence being a disease have ever read Jellinek's
"Disease Concept of Alcoholism"?
Fred
----------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe put- unsubscribe Addict-L -in the body of a message to:
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------- List archives
and subscription options are at:
http://listserv.kent.edu/archives/Addict-L.html
----------------------------------------------------------- Send requests
for help to [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
