The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous

[rubecube]

Good article in The Atlantic detailing the flawed process of AA and the misconceptions it's contributed to in addiction studies and treatment. It's a long read but very well written.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...tm_source=SFFB

[Mightyfire89]

Good stuff. Thanks Rube.

[Vulcan]

I had a bad drug habit at one time. I went through a few rehab centres and the results weren't very good except my health would improve but just the thought of wanting to do the drug again would send me into withdrawal even if I'd been clean for a couple of months. This wasn't curing me, it was just leaving me in a perpetual life of hell as I couldn't be satisfied.

This is where I don't believe in the programs because they tell you, once an alcoholic or a drug addict, always an ....whatever. I was lucky and found a powerful meditation that I believe overtime rewired my brain so I'm free to do just about anything I want, it's just that I don't want to do these things anymore.

This is my personal experience and if a program or something else works for you, stick to it. Anyways interesting article as with their drugs they seem to do the same as what I did with my meditation.

[taco.vidal]

Why Alcoholics Anonymous Works

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/03...ous-works.html

In a story in the April issue of The Atlantic that was posted online earlier today, journalist Gabrielle Glaser harshly criticizes Alcoholics Anonymous. AA and similar 12-step programs, she argues, simply don’t offer the benefits they claim to for those struggling with addiction, and they have become entrenched in both our culture and legal system — judges frequently refer defendants to 12-step programs as an alternative to jail time — as a result of faddishness and cultural appeal rather than sound science.

But on Glaser’s central claim that there’s no rigorous scientific evidence that AA and other 12-step programs work, there’s no quibbling: It’s wrong.

Glaser is simply ignoring a decade’s worth of science.

“No, that’s not true,” said Dr. John Kelly, a clinical psychologist and addiction specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, when I ran Glaser’s argument by him. “There’s quite a bit of evidence now, actually, that’s shown that AA works.” Kelly has a front-row view of the current generation of research: Alongside Dr. Marica Ferri, the original report’s lead author, and Dr. Keith Humphreys of Stanford, he’s currently at work updating the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines (he said they expect to publish their results in August).

[Thor]

My best friend went through AA, an atheist, it worked for him, but like he said its very different in various parts of North America, some heavily promoting religion, some like in Calgary were just using the idea of God as whatever you define it as.

The article is right, AA is not the one and only stop for help, there are plenty of programs that seem to have success, and that he fully agrees with. What might work for him, does not mean he's a fan of the program, he found many flaws within it, but said that the group meetings are the key as they ultimately help the most.

[FLAMESRULE]

I went to AA when I was battling the bottle as well, also an atheist. It helped. A lot. I just muted the religious crap.

The biggest thing that AA does is puts together people from VERY diverse backgrounds. There was everything from 1%ers to schizophrenics to working poor etc. But we all had the same stories, thoughts, and concerns. We all lost wives, friends, jobs, etc. because of the bottle. It is that feeling of acceptance that allows AA to be a support group for people. People share stories, talk about themselves, and are allowed to talk about booze with other people that know what it does..

It wasn't the only thing that got me on the straight and narrow, but it absolutely helped.

[malcolmk14]

AA saved one of my best friends' life.

He is almost 7 years sober and getting married on Sunday.

I'll be happy to be standing up there beside him, rather than visiting a grave.

[troutman]

Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/

Research on the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is controversial and is subject to widely divergent interpretations. The goal of this paper is to provide a focused review of the literature on AA effectiveness that will allow readers to judge the evidence for AA effectiveness themselves. The review organizes the research on AA effectiveness according to six criterion required for establishing causation: (1) magnitude of effect; (2) dose response effect; (3) consistent effect; (4) temporally accurate effects; (5) specific effects; (6) plausibility. The evidence for criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 is very strong: Rates of abstinence are about twice as high among those who attend AA (criteria 1, magnitude); higher levels of attendance are related to higher rates of abstinence (criteria 2, dose-response); these relationships are found for different samples and follow-up periods (criteria 3, consistency); prior AA attendance is predictive of subsequent abstinence (criteria 4, temporal); and mechanisms of action predicted by theories of behavior change are present in AA (criteria 6, plausibility). However, rigorous experimental evidence establishing the specificity of an effect for AA or Twelve Step Facilitation/TSF (criteria 5) is mixed, with 2 trials finding a positive effect for AA, 1 trial finding a negative effect for AA, and 1 trial finding a null effect. Studies addressing specificity using statistical approaches have had two contradictory findings, and two that reported significant effects for AA after adjusting for potential confounders such as motivation to change.

Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.

After 75 Years of Alcoholics Anonymous, It's Time to Admit We Have a Problem
Challenging the 12-step hegemony.

http://www.psmag.com/books-and-cultu...-problem-74268

AA is Faith-Based, Not Evidence-Based

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...ics-anonymous/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...ics-anonymous/

Alternatives to AA, including secular groups, are no longer hard to find. Should you or a loved one struggle with alcohol, check out Secular Organizations For Sobriety (SOS).

If you trust the AA concept but are put off by the higher-power mumbo-jumbo, you can join an agnostic AA group that doesn’t force people to pretend to believe in gods.

[CroFlames]

Congratulations to you all who battled through

[nik-]

The best treatment for Alcoholism is LSD.

[corporatejay]

Penn and Teller did a bull#### on this once, I think their conclusion was, it works for some, doesn't work for others so we shouldn't see it as a magic bullet.

[afc wimbledon]

AA and NA are by no means perfect, different groups are influenced by their senior members, some for the good some not.
What they are though is free, available near 24 hours 7 days a week in any major city, they require no referal, you just turn up.

I have no problem with people finding sobriety any way they want but to take a shot at an organization that has, for no cost to the taxpayer or the addict helped millions of people without question or judgement is beyond reprehensible.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

to take a shot at an organization that has, for no cost to the taxpayer or the addict helped millions of people without question or judgement is beyond reprehensible.

So you're saying anything that is useful or helpful is above scrutiny?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

AA and NA are by no means perfect, different groups are influenced by their senior members, some for the good some not.
What they are though is free, available near 24 hours 7 days a week in any major city, they require no referal, you just turn up.

I have no problem with people finding sobriety any way they want but to take a shot at an organization that has, for no cost to the taxpayer or the addict helped millions of people without question or judgement is beyond reprehensible.

Good works do not place organizations above criticism. No one or no thing has a free pass because of some cumulative good intentions or results.

[afc wimbledon]

What's to criticize? It's a voluntary organization that costs nothing, no one has to go to it, nor do they claim anything other than for some it works.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What's to criticize? It's a voluntary organization that costs nothing, no one has to go to it, nor do they claim anything other than for some it works.

So did you even like, read the article? It has at least a half dozen good points regarding criticisms.

[afc wimbledon]

Yes I read the article and no their isn't a single good criticism of AA in it, there is a lot of criticism of US treatment options, or lack there off, but that's not AA's fault, there was a non sequitur argument that there are cheaper options than 28 week insurance based treatment that makes use of AA, but that's not AA's fault, AA's free, can't get cheaper than that.

The argument against AA has always been threefold, that it asks for a belief in a higher power, that it's abstinence based, and that it is all over the world. None of these things are 'wrong' or make AA invalid.

You can clearly argue that different people need different approach's to their illness, you can clearly wish for a worldwide treatment system that would not be a faith based or an abstinence model, but none of these things are AA's fault.

All AA does is provide a free treatment all over the world for anyone that wants it, it claims nothing for itself, even success rates, it takes no position on anything beyond if you successfully follow the steps you won't be an active alcoholic in the end.


The criticisms of AA are all really criticisms of a lack of alternatives, people get pissed because in the end AA is about all there is out there, but it's not AA's fault.

[PsYcNeT]

I must have missed the part of the article where it said that the shortcomings of the program make it invalid.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I must have missed the part of the article where it said that the shortcomings of the program make it invalid.

The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous
Its faith-based 12-step program dominates treatment in the United States. But researchers have debunked central tenets of AA doctrine and found dozens of other treatments more effective.


I would say the title pretty well does

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous
Its faith-based 12-step program dominates treatment in the United States. But researchers have debunked central tenets of AA doctrine and found dozens of other treatments more effective.


I would say the title pretty well does

Invalid means it's no longer useful. I read that as "useful to some people, in some cases, but better options are available".

The biggest complaint surrounds the fact that AA a) doesn't work for everyone, and b) it's the biggest, loudest and most visible player in town. A person who fails at AA is less likely to seek other avenues.