Alcoholics Anonymous and the like

[LastPoet]

I offered a useful answer to the OP, that a 12-step program can be successfully used by an atheist, since the 'higher power' thing was off-putting.

The bickering is because an ignoramus is making uninformed statements without providing any evidence.

You speak as if you provided some. You should know how it works: You make the claim that AA have some kind of results better from those a person could get by willpower, you provide the evidence. Lying to yourself that they don't try to cram God's or higher powers, while telling you that you are weak, incapable of fighting that fight without going trough the bullshit is not evidence. There are professionals that deal and are trained to help people with addictions. Use the fucking google for something else than confirm your personal bias.

Oh and try to stop projecting your ignorance into me, like I said and its the third time "Et tu Brute?"

[Chas]

I've been in and out of various twelve step groups over the years, and had mostly positive experiences, but then I live in a very secular state, so that probably makes a difference. It's like the unitarian church I sometimes frequent, which is described as the most atheistic in the city. I didn't choose them, much less for that, they were just close by. But it points out that your experience is likely to vary from group to group, and location to location, as well as group focus. I was in Alanon, ACOA, and Nicotine Anonymous, so I likely faced a different mix. From the straight up 12 step groups, I suspect the consistency depends a lot on the local intergroup (sort of a support organization for the groups themselves). If you're looking for consistency and quality, I would suggest focusing on group therapy from a reputable clinic. Ultimately, I suppose the garbage in / garbage out principle applies; if it's run well by good people, and doesn't have a bunch of shitheads in it, it'll probably be positive; if the people are garbage, your experience will likely be, too (not implying that people with chemical dependency are good or bad). I have a concern, though I haven't researched it enough to determine its credibility, but there are reports that once you adjust AA's claimed success rate to compare apples-to-apples with other programs, AA is not a very successful program. As a person whose parents had control issues, I suspect that an addict struggling to control his behavior may find the model of control advocated by 12 step groups to be a useful tool. Beyond that, I can't say much about the deeper experience, other than that the amount of support you have in your life is one of the main factors associated with success, regardless of the behavioral issue. I never got deep enough into the programs to get into sponsors and whatnot. I tend to be very shy and somewhat timid, and that aspect literally freezes me; I don't know that I could ever walk that road, given my social anxiety issues.

It's hard to get accurate statistics about the success rate of AA. I'm pretty sure it's not as successful as people in AA are led to believe.

The quality and success of groups varies widely, and it is all about the people. There are some pretty toxic groups out there and there are some very supportive and successful ones.

---

I offered a useful answer to the OP, that a 12-step program can be successfully used by an atheist, since the 'higher power' thing was off-putting.

The bickering is because an ignoramus is making uninformed statements without providing any evidence.

You speak as if you provided some. You should know how it works: You make the claim that AA have some kind of results better from those a person could get by willpower, you provide the evidence. Lying to yourself that they don't try to cram God's or higher powers, while telling you that you are weak, incapable of fighting that fight without going trough the bullshit is not evidence. There are professionals that deal and are trained to help people with addictions. Use the fucking google for something else than confirm your personal bias.

Oh and try to stop projecting your ignorance into me, like I said and its the third time "Et tu Brute?"

I made no claim about the success rate of AA. You have. Support it or STFU.

Read this.

And this.

[LastPoet]

Here ya go dumbass, I did the work for you:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...mous-work/
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/
http://www.thefix.com/content/the-real-s...-of-aa7301

There is no way you can get a reliable data about the success of AA, Including the own organization not wanting to provide data, the few stats provided by them, a shitload of years ago, point to a success rate equal to people that try to quit on their own.

Hence, AA is BULLSHIT!

[Chas]

Here ya go dumbass, I did the work for you:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...mous-work/
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/
http://www.thefix.com/content/the-real-s...-of-aa7301

There is no way you can get a reliable data about the success of AA, Including the own organization not wanting to provide data, the few stats provided by them, a shitload of years ago, point to a success rate equal to people that try to quit on their own.

Hence, AA is BULLSHIT!

No, those do not support your conclusion. The conclusions are that it is difficult to measure.

AA may or may not be more effective than no treatment, but the references do not support your conclusion.

[LastPoet]

It shows its bullshit FFS. If it was more than a circlejerk with doubious success rates, it would have reliable statistics. You know, there are other treatments that do have statistical data and scientific methods to support them.

[Chas]

It shows its bullshit FFS. If it was more than a circlejerk with doubious success rates, it would have reliable statistics. You know, there are other treatments that do have statistical data and scientific methods to support them.

You cannot validly draw the conclusion that it is bullshit from the data. You are expressing an opinion.
You certainly seem to have a hair across your ass concerning AA.

The studies haven't been done partly because, y'know, 'anonymous'. Some studies show high success, some low. Mostly there is self-reporting and anecdotes.

My opinion is that AA is no more effective than any other intervention, and that all interventions appear to be more successful than no intervention.

[Minimalist]

You are entitled to your (incorrect) opinion.

Yeah, because going to some meetings is waaaaaay more dangerous than drunk driving or cirrhosis of the liver.

He's talking about "religion", Chas. Try to keep up.

[Chas]

Yeah, because going to some meetings is waaaaaay more dangerous than drunk driving or cirrhosis of the liver.

He's talking about "religion", Chas. Try to keep up.

He who? I am responding to you. No one mentioned religion as a substitute.

[Ksa]

My opinion is that AA is no more effective than any other intervention, and that all interventions appear to be more successful than no intervention.

Interventions, are no less bigoted than Leviticus 18:22. During an intervention, the persons carrying it out say that drugs&alcohol are wrong as an absolute truth, they view the user as a sinner and they try to persuade him that what he's doing is wrong.

If someone needs help with their addiction, I do agree with the persons carrying out the intervention, when they say that what the abuser is doing is wrong. But I do not agree when they say that drinking alcohol is wrong. The person needs help not because he's drinking alcohol but because he drinks too much, without control.

So the problem is lack of self-control. It can be a low-testosterone issue also! The person may not have the motivation to stop due to a hormonal unbalance that needs to be evaluated by real professionals. Not some jerk-off telling you that drinking is wrong, his opinion is worthless.

You know, there used to be these anti-drug crew coming to my school, trying to persuade students not to use drugs. And of course, the speaker said he was an addict, that he did horrible things and that, after quitting for good, he recovered and was free. I told him you're an idiot! The best conclusion that can be drawn from such a presentation is that if you're an idiot with low IQ, you should not use drugs because chances are high that you may destroy your life.

[Chas]

My opinion is that AA is no more effective than any other intervention, and that all interventions appear to be more successful than no intervention.

Interventions, are no less bigoted than Leviticus 18:22. During an intervention, the persons carrying it out say that drugs&alcohol are wrong as an absolute truth, they view the user as a sinner and they try to persuade him that what he's doing is wrong.

If someone needs help with their addiction, I do agree with the persons carrying out the intervention, when they say that what the abuser is doing is wrong. But I do not agree when they say that drinking alcohol is wrong. The person needs help not because he's drinking alcohol but because he drinks too much, without control.

So the problem is lack of self-control. It can be a low-testosterone issue also! The person may not have the motivation to stop due to a hormonal unbalance that needs to be evaluated by real professionals. Not some jerk-off telling you that drinking is wrong, his opinion is worthless.

You know, there used to be these anti-drug crew coming to my school, trying to persuade students not to use drugs. And of course, the speaker said he was an addict, that he did horrible things and that, after quitting for good, he recovered and was free. I told him you're an idiot! The best conclusion that can be drawn from such a presentation is that if you're an idiot with low IQ, you should not use drugs because chances are high that you may destroy your life.

Alcoholism is an addiction, it is not simply 'drinking too much'. I suggest you learn about that.

I don't think you understood what I meant about intervention. it is in contrast to no treatment.

And who said drinking is wrong?