No, you need a study to know why they are good for you, and what they are and aren’t good for. Science can also identify what is in oranges that works so that can choose to take a simple vitamin C tablet instead of paying for bunches of oranges. This saves you money in the long run, and benefits those who can’t eat oranges.
Science is your friend-don’t run away from it.
Did you consider the possibility that a newcomer might hear the horrific tales that you and others testify to at these meetings and think “Hell, I don’t have to be here-I’m nowhere near as bad off as they are.” My father-in-law walked out of AA for precisely this reason.
I am referring to the over two million active members of Alcoholics Anonymous. Who did you think I was referring to?
If a person is in the mindset of looking for justifications, they’re going to find them. That’s also human nature.
Oddly, for all that you are certain that AA is worse than useless, you appear distressed that your FIL chose not to participate? If its so awful and pointless, wasn’t that a positive step for him?
This is precisely the reason why I generally DON’T talk about the nightmare when talking with a newcomer. I talk about the mental obsession, the complete failure of willpower, the methods I tried to not drink. Things that any alcoholic, regardless of how for down the elevator they have rode, can relate to.
I would love to continue this conversation, but AA has given me something else: the ability to hold down a job. I would like to keep it that way:)
It also seems to be human nature to dismiss all criticism against a group as unwarranted when you have great emotional investment in that group.
I swear it’s like I’m pounding my head against a brick wall sometimes-There are claims being made about the effectiveness of AA, and I would like to see if these claims are backed up by science. If research shows that AA is as wonderful as it’s proponents claim, fine and dandy.
I don’t have great investment in it. I am not a member, No one in my family is a member. None of my friends are members. As it happens, I do not know many alcoholics or drug addicts. The members I know are aquiantences, or people I know through work.
I think the program is reasonable, commonsensical, free and widely available to people who have no other way to seek treatment because they lack funds. Therefore, it is a positive. Whether it is better or worse than other options that many people have no access to, does not concern me much.
No one is running away from science.
We’ve established that science hasn’t provided adequate studies to evaluate the success of AA
What if there was no science on oranges. Does that mean we have no evidence that they are good for you and their usefulness should be questioned ?
I don’t know, because you certain can’t be claiming that someone has found someone has found success using AA just because they currently attend meetings, can you? Of the over two million currently in meetings, how many will still be attending one year from now?
Five years?
Ten years?
How bad would the dropout rate have to be before you would change your mind as to how many successes AA can claim?
I was leaving, but I saw this and had to respond. You seem to be actively avoiding my question. Do you or do you not think that millions of people that claim the impossible (staying sober)is now possible due to the program of Alcoholics Anonymous has some validity? Is it even remotely possible that every single one of these people are lying?
Yes, I am a proponent of AA. I am also a proponent of science. You and I both know that science can not explain everything.
If the great majority of those that have actively participated in the program of alcoholics anonymous say that their life is better because of it, doesn’t that warrant some consideration.
It means we have anecdotes, much the same as people have anecdotes concerning a wide variety of beliefs. The next step is to study and find out, doncha think?
If not, why not?
As has been pointed out, we have yet to establish the “successful millions” figure yet.
Due to the nature of anonymity, this is yet another unverified claim.
I’m with you on the dropout right. Of the people that show up at AA not many will be here one year from now. If you read my posts, you will see that I have not tried to hide this fact.
But of those people, It has been my observation that the ones that grasp hold of the AA program with the same fervor that a drowning man grasps hold of a life preserver, the vast majority, if not all, will still be around and still be sober one year later.
I have never claimed that AA is the ONLY way to stay sober. Hell, my friend who left the program for pretty much the same reason that I left it (a dislike of the spiritual foundation) seems to be doing just fine. And as I said, my hat is off to him.
The question naturally arises though, “Could I stay sober without AA now that I’ve had a pretty long stretch of sobriety.”
I don’t know the answer to that, and quite honestly, don’t care. I’m not about to chance it. A return to the old way of life would be equivalent to suicide.
I’m new here, maybe you can help me out. I can’t figure out how to link to other sites. However, you can google “How many people are in AA” and find many different cites for the over 2 million figure.
But let"s just say for shits and giggles that that number is way off. Let’s say that it’s double the real number.
That’s still over a million active members of AA.
Now, would you are would you not say that 1 million people who claim that AA has allowed them to do what was formerly impossible (stay sober) has some validity?
Using the “over two million” currently in the program as a base figure, and generously counting “five years in the program” as a success, how many successes can AA count? It certainly less than the two million you’ve been claiming.
One million?
Five hundred thousand?
One thousand?
Before you recommend this program to others, don’t you think you should find out how common, or how rare, your personal experience with it really is?
I would actually call one year a pretty good indicator of success. And I’m not trying to back paddle here. The reason? Very few alcoholics can stay sober anything like a year using nothing but their own willpower. If a person can stay sober a year in AA than that would be an indicator of at least some success.
Now in answer to your question, I have no personal data outside of 2 groups. The group that I got sober at, which I still keep and close contact with, and the group that I attend now.
In the group that I attend now, outside of the ones that show up for a few meetings and are never seen again (these would probably not be counted in that 2 million figure anyway) about 70% have been sober over a year.
To use your more stringent five years, about 45% have been sober 5 years or longer.
Now I have to make an assumption that my group is representative of AA as a whole. 45% of “over two million” is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million.
So do you think that One million people sober over 5 years in AA has some significance? Does this have some validity?
In response to this particular question, there a a number of people like myself who got their start in sobriety through AA, got some tools but after several years decline to regularly attend. They are not counted as members.
My FIL and myself fit that category.
If I ever do fail, I know where to go.
Now I really have to get some work done. See ya later:)