# Is it really fair to talk about AA "success rates"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657 "2011-02-26T01:42:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/41 "2011-02-26T19:34:23Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > You cannot admit that a person has achieved something good if they who used to drink to excess on a regular basis and could not stop no matter how often they promised their doctor or family they would, but later finds a way to live a happy, serene life without alcohol? You cannot admit that is objectively “good”? Of course I can admit that’s good. I can’t admit that AA helps people achieve that at rates greater than other treatments, any treatments or no treatment at all. I can’t admit that everyone who goes to AA isn’t drinking to excess _if_ - and I thought this was your point in the OP - Alcoholics Anonymous is an anonymous organization. If their entire structure and philosophy precludes such tracking or investigation of members’ medical status, which is what your claim was upthread. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/42 "2011-02-26T19:36:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > At best, all you can say is that is what it means to _you_.Why would somebody voluntarily go to UFO meetings or Sasquatch gatherings at their own expense if they weren’t convinced of their legitimacy? I said that “good” means “people who used to be drunk all the time and could not seem to control it no matter how hard they tried, and now have learned to stay sober, and turn their lives around for the better by sharing and comparing their experiences with other similarly afflicted people, drawing strength and inspiration from their fellow sufferers.” And I might have added “And now find their lives much better.” Yes, you are right, I can only say with certainty that that is what it means to me. Only I have heard literally hundreds of AA members say something along those lines over 18 years. I extrapolate how other people are likely to feel based on my own feelings and common sense ALL THE TIME! :eek: I am a male and have never had breast cancer, but I am willing to bet that with the exception of a few suicidal and pain-freak women, 99% of women who are told they don’t have breast cancer are happy and relieved. How irrational of me to assume that, without having run or at least looked up a survey to confirm my supposition! And when thousands of people voluntarily get together at a regional round-up of AA to attend meetings, go out to dinner with friends (without drinks or wine), hear talented speakers describe their own journey to sobriety, dance, play games and celebrate the fact that they have achieved years of sobriety after years uncontrolled self-destructive drinking. . . . . how absurd of me to assume that something good has happened to these people without a scientist in a white coat having defined, quantified and studied their emotions. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/43 "2011-02-26T19:46:11Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Of course I can admit that’s good. I can’t admit that AA helps people achieve that at rates greater than other treatments, any treatments or no treatment at all. I can’t admit that everyone who goes to AA isn’t drinking to excess _if_ - and I thought this was your point in the OP - Alcoholics Anonymous is an anonymous organization. If their entire structure and philosophy precludes such tracking or investigation of members’ medical status, which is what your claim was upthread. I am not trying to be a smart-ass, but I have trouble understanding the sentence: " I can’t admit that everyone who goes to AA isn’t drinking to excess . . . . ." It may be I damaged my brain with those years of boozing 😛 but I am having trouble with that double negative. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/44 "2011-02-26T19:55:19Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > I am not trying to be a smart-ass, but I have trouble understanding the sentence: " I can’t admit that everyone who goes to AA isn’t drinking to excess . . . . ." > > It may be I damaged my brain with those years of boozing 😛 but I am having trouble with that double negative. Rhetorical style, riffing on the “can admit” that you set up for me. Let me try it with less style and more clarity 🙂 : Of course I can admit that’s good. But admitting that’s good doesn’t tell me whether or not AA helps people achieve that at rates greater than other treatments [or interventions, or support groups, if you don’t like the word “treatment”], any treatments or no treatment at all\*. I can’t tell whether or not everyone who goes to AA is or isn’t still drinking to excess if - and I thought this was your point in the OP - Alcoholics Anonymous is an anonymous organization. If their entire structure and philosophy precludes such tracking or investigation of members’ medical status, which is what your claim was upthread, then there’s, as you said, simply no way to know. Elaboration: I feel like you’re trying to have it both ways. You’re saying people shouldn’t fixate on the oft-quoted and seemingly low 5% success rate of AA, because the structure of AA precludes us from tracking people, not to mention the pitfalls of trying to define “success”. I agree with that. Then you spend much of the rest of the thread telling us what a success AA is, because of your experiences and the experiences of people in AA that you’ve talked to. Well, if I can’t judge that AA is not a success because I can’t track AA members, then you can’t judge that AA is a success…because you can’t track AA members, either! I mean, I’m glad it’s worked for you and all those people you’ve talked to, but I’m absolutely certain that you haven’t talked to all, or the majority, or even a scientifically selected sample of AA members. So if I can’t judge success rates, neither can you. \*That is, maybe Treatment X works better than AA, or maybe Treatment X and AA work equally well, because ANY treatment works, or maybe no treatment at all works just as well as Treatment X and AA, because there’s an entirely different factor - genetics, money, luck - that is really what determines who can master their alcoholic tendencies and who can’t. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/45 "2011-02-26T20:09:27Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I mean, I’m glad it’s worked for you and all those people you’ve talked to, but I’m absolutely certain that you haven’t talked to all, or the majority, or even a scientifically selected sample of AA members. So if I can’t judge success rates, neither can you. > > \*That is, maybe Treatment X works better than AA, or maybe Treatment X and AA work equally well, because ANY treatment works, or maybe no treatment at all works just as well as Treatment X and AA, because there’s an entirely different factor - genetics, money, luck - that is really what determines who can master their alcoholic tendencies and who can’t. :: post snipped :: Check the studies I linked to upthread. It appears that the best treatment option is A.A. with some sort of outpatient treatment. It appears that no treatment is the worst option. Slee ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/46 "2011-02-26T20:23:50Z")
I heard that success in AA is measured only one day at a time by one person at a time. Seems to me that Charlie Sheen is saying that it only had a 5 percent success rate for him, which means that he is sober for the first 3 minutes of the meeting. Or is it the last 3 minutes? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/47 "2011-02-26T20:27:36Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > How much it hinders people who would have controlled it on their own is open to question, frankly. If you think you can control it, nobody is forcing anybody to go to a meeting. Non-alcoholics who “try” AA may well be why so many people who go to AA are not there a year later. I do not know about the 95% figure or how it was collected, but I would agree from my own experience that the majority of people who walk into a given AA meeting are not still attending \*\*THAT MEETING \*\*a year later. > > For that matter, I have read that 80% of new businesses are not there 5 yerars later, but that has never been cited as a reason for people not to start a business. That’s not a reasonable argument there. Starting businesses is a requisite for having a business five years later. AA isn’t a requisite for controlling drinking. > [@](#): > > So WHY don’t most people who try it stick with it? We don’t know. But here are some logical assumptions. > > We can assume that virtually 100% of people who walk voluntarily into an AA meeting have some valid concern about their drinking. Thank goodness there is a court decision that will stop judges from forcing people to go to AA! There may be an occasional weirdo who just wants free coffee, or a Ned Flanders (the Simpsons) who drank a small glass of sherry last month and is wracked with guilt. But let’s say 100% have some worry about their drinking, and there probably is some form of excess that gave rise to that worry. > > BTW, you might be interested to know that I, with my 18 years of sobriety, actually belong to that group of people who initially attended one meeting and did not come back for years. In my case, it was because I was still young and on the bar scene and did not feel my drinking was all that bad, and was scared of what life would be like without booze to comfort me. I told the AA members that I could drink responsibly if I tried. They smiled, said good luck, and I did not see AA again for 10 years. In 1993, I started my present 18-year run. > > Logically, there can be the following reasons to explain why a person does not return to AA after attending one or a few meetings. Please tell me if I have missed any. > > [ul] > [li]They died (got hit by a bus, or something) or suddenly got hospitalized. [/li] > [li]They moved to another city. They may be regularly attending AA in that city, or maybe not.[/li] > [li]They believe that they are powerless over alcohol all right, and they love the program, but they found an AA meeting closer to home with people they like better. The first AA meeting does not receive a report. There are NO records. All the first meeting knows is that Sue came to three meetings, seemed to like it, but never came back.[/li] > [li]They admit there is a problem, but that AA is too radical and severe, and that they can handle it themselves with just a bit of will power. Now, this last category must be further subdivided into two sub-groups[/li] > [1]People who can control it themselves and become moderate drinkers. These people do not need AA, but attending a few meetings at least familiarized them with the concept and they might be able to send a REAL alcoholic friend there someday. No harm done. Couple of hours and a couple of bucks wasted, maybe. > > [2]People who are still deluding themselves that they can handle it alone, or that they can turn their drinking moderate and keep it there. Now, this category further subdivides logically into two more categories: > > [2a]People who will never admit they have a problem that has them licked, and will drink themselves to death, or > > [2b]People who will realize that they need outside help because without it, the booze will win every time. These people may return to AA, (where they will be welcomed with open arms and a big hug) **OR TO ANOTHER TREATMENT PROGRAM IF THERE IS ONE AVAILABLE THAT WORKS FOR THEM.** AA does not pass jugement on other programs. > [/ul] Why they aren’t there doesn’t matter. What matters is if AA’s success rates are better than no treatment. Would you say that a headache medicine that works the same as no treatment is useful? > [@](#): > > So how come I am an atheist in AA? And I BECAME an atheist about 10 years into my 18 years of sobriety, AFTER I joined AA. I have several atheists buddies in my meeting group. There is also a 12-step group called Rational Recovery (RR) for those who do not want to hear the G-word. But I have never felt a need to go to it because AA does not demand any religious belief of any kind. A lot of atheists attend both, simply because there are more regular AA than RR meetings. Your individual experiences only account for you. The whole “hire power” thing sounds a lot like an endorsement for theism. If you didn’t buy it, good for you, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t selling it. > [@](#): > > You just have to trust in a higher power. That can be God, Allah, Jesus, your sponsor, your AA group, whatever. For me it is the power of love when people help one another. The 12 steps, which were written in the 1930s, mention God, but they are merely suggestions that each member can interpret as they wish. Laudable, though I question how many take your enlightened view? > [@](#): > > I have NEVER been reprimanded or criticized by another member for being an atheist. > > When I say the serenity prayer, I say "May I achieve the serenity. . . . " instead of “God grant me. . . .” Again, your personal diversion from the core teachings doesn’t mean they aren’t promoting it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/48 "2011-02-26T20:28:38Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I heard that success in AA is measured only one day at a time by one person at a time. Seems to me that Charlie Sheen is saying that it only had a 5 percent success rate for him, which means that he is sober for the first 3 minutes of the meeting. Or is it the last 3 minutes? I imagine he doesn’t drink during the meeting, so his buzz is probably wearing off near the end. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/49 "2011-02-26T20:31:53Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > …Seems to me that Charlie Sheen is saying that it only had a 5 percent success rate for him, which means that he is sober for the first 3 minutes of the meeting… Charlie Sheen is exactly the reason for the second “A” in AA. Why on earth should **Valteron** or anyone else let Charlie Sheen detract from the sobriety they can have with AA? That would be almost as much of a travesty as _Two-and-a-Half Men_. It was kind of the whole point of of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/50 "2011-02-26T20:58:03Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > …I can’t admit that AA helps people achieve that at rates greater than other treatments, any treatments or no treatment at all. I can’t admit that everyone who goes to AA isn’t drinking to excess _if_ - and I thought this was your point in the OP - Alcoholics Anonymous is an anonymous organization. If their entire structure and philosophy precludes such tracking or investigation of members’ medical status, which is what your claim was upthread. Let me be repetitive again: [QUOTE=guizot] At the risk of being repetitive, I’ll be repetitive: AA is not treatment, and doesn’t claim to be. If you don’t take that into consideration, you can’t even have this discussion. [/quote] AA’s structure precludes “tracking,” etc. because it does not attempt in any way to do what treatment does. It doesn’t sell itself or promote itself, or claim to cure people. It simply is there. You can come to it or you can not come to it. (The courts are a different matter.) There is no basis to even approach the issue on those terms. Is that so hard to grasp? It’s like telling someone, “You say you can’t get yourself to exercise unless you have an iPod and now you exercise everyday with an iPod, but you can’t show me that you couldn’t have gotten yourself to exercise without an iPod, so therefore, I say the iPod doesn’t really ‘work.’” It’s pointless, and that’s what the OP is saying. You’re applying an irrelevant framework of perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/51 "2011-02-26T21:25:30Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > It’s like telling someone, “You say you can’t get yourself to exercise unless you have an iPod and now you exercise everyday with an iPod, but you can’t show me that you couldn’t have gotten yourself to exercise without an iPod, so therefore, I say the iPod doesn’t really ‘work.’” It’s pointless, and that’s what the OP is saying. You’re applying an irrelevant framework of perspective. Couln’t have said it better myself, guizot. I still can’t say it better. Which is why I keep on droning enlessly with interminable posts. 😃 Let me see if I can get it even simpler: AA was founded in 1935 Bill Wilson was in Akron, Ohio on business. He had a horrible history of alcohol abuse. He was mystified as to why he could not stop, no matter how much he wanted to. He was terrified as he walked towards the hotel bar. But instead, he ducked into a phone booth in the lobby and phoned a clergyman (aha, you see, is **IS** a religious scam in disguise :rolleyes:) said he was a drunk and asked to speak to another drunk, if they knew of one. At first the woman who answered the phone thought he was saying he _was_ drunk. They finally got this sorted out and they recommended a Doctor named Bob Smith, who also had a terrible drinking problem. Both of them were sober at the time and wished to remain so. They sat and talked most of the night and **did not drink**. And they noticed one amazing fact. The only one who understands the demons, terrors and fears that prey on the mind of an alcoholic is another alcoholic. And together they can help each other if both of them wish to remain sober. If you want an explanation of AA, that is the best I can give. Essentially, nothing essential has changed in that formula since they hit on it in 1935. That is how it works for me and for every other AA I know. One day at a time. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/52 "2011-02-26T23:28:16Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > At the risk of being repetitive, I’ll be repetitive: AA is not treatment, and doesn’t claim to be. If you don’t take that into consideration, you can’t even have this discussion. Alcoholics Anonymous refers to their “recovery program” in **This is A.A.: An Introduction to the A.A. Recovery Program** , a pamphlet, and goes on to say that: > [@pamphlet](#): > > Today we are willing to accept the idea that, as far as we are concerned, alcoholism is an illness, a progressive illness which can never be “cured,” but which, like some other illnesses, _can_ be arrested. > [@](#): > > We are perfectly willing to admit that we are allergic to alcohol… They might not use the word treatment but I can’t help but think of it as a treatment program. It’s designed to “arrest” an illness that can’t be cured. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/53 "2011-02-26T23:34:06Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > Both of them were sober at the time and wished to remain so. They sat and talked most of the night and **did not drink**. And they noticed one amazing fact. The only one who understands the demons, terrors and fears that prey on the mind of an alcoholic is another alcoholic. And together they can help each other if both of them wish to remain sober. If you’re interested, in the 19th century there was a temperance group formed exclusively by former drunkards (they didn’t call 'em alcoholics until later) known as the Washingtonian Movement. They named themselves after G. Washington because they wanted to emulate his virtue but not his drinking habits of course. The Washingtonians were different in that many members spoke openly to great crowds of people about their experiences with pernicious rum and whisky. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/54 "2011-02-27T03:24:57Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > They might not use the word treatment but I can’t help but think of it as a treatment program. It’s designed to “arrest” an illness that can’t be cured. If you persist to think of it in that way it will never make sense. A lot of the language in their literature is metaphoric anyway. It’s obviously not literally an allergy in the way that one gets a rash or something. More important than the discourse of the literature are the actual things they do to stay sober. The way it’s been described to me (someone correct me if I’m wrong), it’s a way to take moral responsibility for one’s actions, so as to arrive at a kind of relief from a lifetime conscience which has driven the compulsion to drink. It’s a way to feel comfortable in one’s own skin, without liquor. Some of the things my friends say sound surprisingly similar to Buddhist principles. You may have a knee-jerk reaction to that, and perceive it as a form of religion, especially since they use the word “God,” but really, for them that word is more a placeholder for the idea of morality. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/55 "2011-02-27T04:02:27Z")
I am a recovering alcoholic and I don’t currently go to AA but I have and have the utmost respect for it as an organization. We aren’t ever going to convince any opponents of the ideology of it. I don’t believe all of it myself. What I can tell you are the facts. 1. People to discuss the poor success rates of AA as evidence of something against it. Let’s not forgot the control groups. The dirty little secret in the addiction business is that the vast majority of people relapse within the first few months let alone the first year or over five years no matter what they try. It usually takes multiple tries. Sometimes dozens or even hundreds or tries. You can fail and go back to AA and hardly anyone will hold it against you or you can try something else. It is almost completely free after all and that isn’t true for other types of treatments. 2. The movies show people going into fancy rehabs and coming back out a new person ready to face the world based on ‘real’ treatments. Do you know what you spend much of your structured time in rehab doing even for the ones that cost $10,000 a week or more? You see doctors to go over medical tests, see a social worker, go to some fluff counseling sessions, go for smoke breaks, and then to AA or NA meetings inside the rehab. They bring volunteer groups in from AA to hold them and you have to go because nothing better is known. Studies on experimental addiction treatments often have AA attendance as a key measure of their own success even if they use medical drugs because again, addiction specialists don’t have anything better to counter that part of recovery. There are secular recovery groups for people that hate the idea of God but they aren’t nearly as widespread (see the point below) and the basic idea is the same anyway. 3. AA is everywhere. This is a really big one. Nothing else as widespread exists for the same purpose in the world. A big part of breaking an addiction is simply learning to occupy your time some other way and breaking down the isolation that has been built up. You can pay a therapist to listen to you but they won’t do it multiple times a day 365 days a year but AA meetings run morning, noon, and night in almost every area of the country. The government couldn’t even fund such a thing if it wanted to yet AA does it on its own through almost no leadership. In early recovery, one of the biggest obstacles for many people is learning to be accountable to someone else and just showing up and not using for some period of time. Once you ask for a temporary sponsor, he/she will check on you if you start missing. You can drink or use drugs before and after the meeting but not during it and those accountable hours are something many people with addiction problems really need. Just showing up is a success on its own for many people early on and is less time they have to do more damage. If you are about to freeze to death in the cold and you find a group that is giving away free houses with no obligation, you really shouldn’t criticize the colors they painted the walls. You still get something freely given with no strings attached. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/56 "2011-02-27T04:23:27Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > If you’re interested, in the 19th century there was a temperance group formed exclusively by former drunkards (they didn’t call 'em alcoholics until later) known as the Washingtonian Movement. They named themselves after G. Washington because they wanted to emulate his virtue but not his drinking habits of course. The Washingtonians were different in that many members spoke openly to great crowds of people about their experiences with pernicious rum and whisky. I have read about the Washingtonians, and in AA we say that they came very close to discovering the winning formula, but somehow just missed it. They had a lot of the same ideas, but became a temperance and quasi-political movement. Their objective was no longer just to help their members remain sober. I think that was their downfall. AA by contrast has NO opinion on outside issues. They have NO opinion on prohibition. If someone wants to build a bar right next to where AA meets, they have NO opinion on that. They are not for or against the legalization of marijuana, or the raising or lowering of the drinking age. In a manner of speaking every member of AA has to be intensely selfish to succeed, namely, he or she has to put their own sobriety and recovery first and become convinced that they deserve a life of swerenity, happiness and peace. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/57 "2011-02-27T04:40:24Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > If you persist to think of it in that way it will never make sense. A lot of the language in their literature is metaphoric anyway. It’s obviously not literally an allergy in the way that one gets a rash or something. More important than the discourse of the literature are the actual things they do to stay sober. The way it’s been described to me (someone correct me if I’m wrong), it’s a way to take moral responsibility for one’s actions, so as to arrive at a kind of relief from a lifetime conscience which has driven the compulsion to drink. It’s a way to feel comfortable in one’s own skin, without liquor. Some of the things my friends say sound surprisingly similar to Buddhist principles. You may have a knee-jerk reaction to that, and perceive it as a form of religion, especially since they use the word “God,” but really, for them that word is more a placeholder for the idea of morality. I have often said in AA meetings that there is little or nothing in their philosphy of life that is new, in the sense that everything we believe has already been said by other great thinkers. This is not a criticism of AA. When I say it, everone at the meeting nods and agrees with me. “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change” is another version of Buddhist thought. “The Roman philospher Epictetus said: 'We are not bothered by what happens to us but by our reactions to the things that happen to us.” Two thousand years later, Victor Frankel, the famous psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, said it in another form: The only real control you can have in life is your choice to love or hate, to be happy or sad. AA says we cannot really control what happens to us in life. We can control our thoughts about life and our reactions to it. When we accept that we are powerless over almost everything in life, we become truly free to be happy. “Live one day at a time” is just another version of what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow can worry about itself, you have enough on you plate to handle today.” The more you stay in AA, the more you realize that it has very little to do with not drinking (even if that is an **indispensible** first step) and that 99% of it is about learning to live according to truths that wise human beings have been preaching for milenia. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/58 "2011-02-27T06:25:20Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > What exactly did this survey define as “success”? I don’t know how it was done for this survey, but if I were in charge, I would pick something like “X years being sober after beginning to attend AA meeting = success” That’s the way the success rates of cancer treatments, for instance, are calculated. If you don’t have a recurrence after X years (I believe usually 5 years) it’s counted as a successful treatment, even though there’s no guarantee that you won’t ever have a cancer again. I’m not sure why a similar method couldn’t be used with alcoholism. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/59 "2011-02-27T06:26:43Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > If you persist to think of it in that way it will never make sense. A lot of the language in their literature is metaphoric anyway. It’s obviously not literally an allergy in the way that one gets a rash or something. Given that the pamphlet in question is designed to convey information about AA to a broad audience (alcoholics and non-alcoholics) I seriously question your assertion that it is metaphoric in nature. > **[Literature Listing | Alcoholics Anonymous](https://www.aa.org/resources/literature?origpage=198&product=4)** > > Literature published by A.A. World Services, Inc., is a resource for recovering alcoholics and other individuals. > [@](#): > > You may have a knee-jerk reaction to that, and perceive it as a form of religion, especially since they use the word “God,” but really, for them that word is more a placeholder for the idea of morality. I don’t care if it’s religious in nature but God as used in AA literature is hardly a metaphor for morality. If God was just a metaphor, why would step #5 include admitting to God, yourself, and others that the nature of your wrongs? It makes no sense to admit to morality. Have you actually read their literature or are you simply going by what others have told you? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657/60 "2011-02-27T06:41:11Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > They had a lot of the same ideas, but became a temperance and quasi-political movement. Their objective was no longer just to help their members remain sober. I think that was their downfall. It wasn’t the temperance part that broke 'em up it was the prohibition. I know a lot of people lump them together but they’re really two separate and distinct opinions. As an organization, even from the beginning, they were sided with the temperance crowd and some of their members made a living giving speeches at various temperance events throughout the nation. Temperance = moral suasion. I’m going to persuade you not to drink. Prohibition = political decision. I’m going to make it so you can’t drink. Prohibition was a very controversial idea even for many Temperance advocates. Dio Lewis, teetotaler and never a Washingtonian, was a famous Temperance advocate in the 19th century who was vehemently opposed to prohibition on the grounds that it robbed men of their rights. Jack London, author and raging alcoholic, was a staunch prohibitionist. > [@](#): > > AA by contrast has NO opinion on outside issues. They have NO opinion on prohibition. Yeah, AA is different from the Washingtonian’s in a variety of ways. Given how popular the movement was in the 19th century it’s amazing how quickly they sank into obscurity. My thesis is on temperance/prohibition in the south and while I don’t concentrate on periods after 1919 I don’t believe the founders of AA had ever heard of the Washingtonians. I think the biggest similarity between the two organizations is the fact that they are both made up of people negatively affected by alcohol consumption. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-fair-to-talk-about-aa-success-rates/572657.md?page=4)