Actually quite a few words. At times I seem to be in the throes of some seriously run-on sentences. I was a tad nervous. George seems like a really nice guy. Somehow he finds a way to connect with his guests and ask questions that are both challenging and friendly. That friendliness — what seemed like authentic warmth — made me feel less like a dork than I might have. I’ve always found it damn disconcerting to talk about the nasty things I did, on the air, especially on TV, where there’s really nowhere to hide. And there were a lot of cameras and lights, and real live people in the audience. So yeah, I was kind of nervous, especially at first.
For my readers outside of Canada, the Strombo show is our version of The Tonight Show…laid back chatty interviews with a very charismatic host, on national TV. When we taped this segment, way back in October, I was in awe of him. I guess I still am.
Here’s the interview, as posted on YouTube. Thanks to Sharon, a reader — no, not that Sharon! — who either posted it our found it there.
Informed by unparalleled neuroscientific insight and written with his usual flare, Marc Lewis’s The Biology of Desire effectively refutes the medical view of addiction as a brain disease. A bracing and informative corrective to the muddle that now characterizes public and professional discourse on this topic.” —Gabor Maté, M.D., author of In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters With Addiction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-flBcgrsIMg
Thanks, Sharon!!! Now, if I can only figure out how to embed it…. But I’m well on the way. And…..I’ve been anxiously waiting (for 8 months!) to see how this came off. Not too bad. They seem to have skipped over the more embarrassing moments and I’m glad they included some of the laughs.
Hi Marc
I just watched the interview . To me you came across as a lovely and humble human being .
Thank you so much. Your words lift my spirits.
It was too brief, Marc, but you looked good.
Hi Marc,
Good interview, but I agree it was too short. I remember when “Strombo” was on Much. He was the coolest and still is. By the way have you ever read the Orange Papers? What did you think? (I got the link from the Fix)
Thanks. It was long enough for me. I get nervous again just watching it.
Thanks for referring me to the Orange Papers! What an amazing site. I have seen the 5% recovery figure for AA from a number of other sources, so I believe it. I also understand that that is roughly the rate of spontaneous recovery, in which case AA may not be helping anyone.
However, we must keep in mind that this statistic is based on total abstinence for first-time attendees. Many claim that, even after several relapses, AA attendees get better (get sober) at a rate well beyond the rate of spontaneous recovery. And many may reduce drinking but never become fully abstinent. It’s harder to dig up the stats for these groups. Please let us know if any of you have found them. In any case, these are important qualifiers for the 5% figure. One-shot total-abstinence may be too strict a criterion for any treatment program.
For other readers, the Orange Papers website is a COMPREHENSIVE set of opinion, citations and statistics that describe AA in a pretty negative light. It’s more or less an online “book” with many chapters, plus reader responses. And it’s easy reading, often light-hearted and humorous. The conclusion is that AA isn’t only unhelpful, it’s actually harmful in many cases. However, please keep in mind that this view, like any other view, comes from a certain perspective. From other perspectives, AA looks a lot better.
Here’s the link: http://www.orange-papers.org/
Here’s the link to a more neutral (and far shorter!) set of notes and stats, which doesn’t say much for AA either. Many links to formal statistical studies are listed: http://www.cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm