AA, Bill Wilson, Carl Jung and LSD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an established resource for people suffering from alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, Bill Wilson, the co-founder of AA, in his second letter to Jung referred to its low success rate. One evidence-based alternative, dating back to the 1950s, is the clinical use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for treating AUD. Bill Wilson was a strong advocate of using LSD as a preparation for alcoholics who had difficulty grasping the spiritual aspect of the 12-step programme. Bill Wilson wrote a "secret" four-page letter to Carl Jung detailing his own use of LSD and the success two psychiatrists in Canada had in treating alcoholics and asked for his advice on using LSD to help alcoholics. Aniela Jaffé, a Jungian analyst and co-worker of Jung, replied to Wilson on May 29, 1961, "… as soon as Dr. Jung feels better and has enough strength to begin again his mail, I will show it to him." Jung died a week later. This article quotes Jung's previous hostile opinions on psychedelics and asks: Just as Jung overcame his negative views on groups when giving "complete instructions" on extending the 12-step programme of AA to "general neurotics", might he similarly have changed his mind when he saw the documented success of using LSD with recalcitrant alcoholics?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".