# Shodan and AClockWorkMelon **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 19, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705 "2010-10-19T21:24:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/221 "2010-10-24T11:06:08Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > I don’t need a pass. I would have posted precisely what I did even knowing that posters would lose their shit. I didn’t go into the thread for **twickster** or anyone else. I went in to respond to the OP. I wasn’t threadshitting. He asked for advice and I advised him against wasting time with AA. It doesn’t have to do with threadshitting. It has to do with whether you were trolling or not. It’s already been established that whether you believe what you say or not is irrelevant. Of course, it’s only one troll post, and every does one occasionally. But, if you knew it would piss people off, then there’s no reason to be defending yourself in the pit. You got what you wanted. > [@](#): > > Even with the placebo effect AA doesn’t have any higher incidence of success. And it often does make things worse; it wastes participants’ time and sometimes provides them with a new addiction altogether- an addiction to the “treatment” itself. It doesn’t need to. It only needs to make the person think they have something that works. Perhaps I should have referred to it ritual magic. The point is, if the person thinks something works, there’s nothing wrong with it. If someone who is an alcoholic doesn’t believe there is anything out there that can help them, they will often remain an alcoholic. As for your claim that addiction to the program is bad–that’s already been discussed, and it’s pretty clear that being sober and going to meetings is not a significant problem. As for the time you lost–you didn’t. That same time would have been spent trying to control your drinking. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/222 "2010-10-24T11:08:07Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > That was a stupid comment. No, it’s not. If A is just as effective as B, it is stupid to say “Don’t do A, it sucks.” You instead say, “Pick A or B, it’s your choice. Neither works better.” Except, of course, as has been pointed out, it obviously isn’t resolved that A=B, so you shouldn’t be recommending one or the other anyways. Just give the information. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/223 "2010-10-24T14:00:58Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > I think that’s obvious, but it’s like distilling what “works” with psychotherapy–there are so many variables, that even when someone gets better, you can’t identify it across a group. > > Moreover, you can’t devise a study which would show this anyway, because you can’t randomly assign someone to AA. If you read the review article I posted, you’d see that apparently that was exactly what was done for at least one of the studies. Otherwise, like any epidemiology study, you normalize for certain categories. When this was done, the success of AA was mixed particularly in regard for specificity. Also, you coffee analogy should be as follows: A bunch of sleepy people are in a hall. Some sit on their chairs, don’t move and succumb to their sleepiness. Others get up and walk across the room to get coffee. Most put cream in their coffee because they are told that cream keeps them awake. Still others get up and move around every time they feel sleepy but don’t take coffee. No one takes cream alone (12 steps bare bones, no other support that’s involved in AA). Most the people who commit to staying awake, stay awake. However, the ones who drink coffee are the most likely ones the ones who stay awake. Unfortunately, people attribute their alertness to cream which always accompanies the coffee and state unequivocally that “cream works”. They also state that sleepiness is a disease that needs to be cured by cream. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/224 "2010-10-24T14:11:42Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > So you don’t accept that long-term use of alcohol has demonstrable long-term, if not permanent, effects on brain physiology, particularly neurotransmitters and how they handle serotonin and dopamine? Granted, AA hasn’t come to this conclusion itself, but other research has. Yes. But again, that’s a normal body response to continued, chronic stimulation. Tolerance and conditioning (with some real brain damage). These are reversible and the ease to reversing them depends on the severity and length of addiction. Would fever be considered a disease? No, it’s a normal response to a pathogen. Addiction is typically a response to environmental stress. Or, for very addictive substances, its simply a hijacking of the body’s normal pleasure systems by the powerful drug. It is not a disease. There may be some genetic predisposition for addictive behavior but, again, that doesn’t mean it’s a disease. Yes, I know, defining a disease is ambiguous and it’s hard to draw a line but I think calling addiction a disease is counterproductive. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/225 "2010-10-25T14:10:54Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > OK, here’s the most recent review I’ve found on AA. It restates the other NIH article that appears to be repeatedly misinterpreted by people who insist on saying that it proved that AA (as opposed to simply committing to some form of long term intervention) is effective. > > I tried to explain this in my earlier post. To make the case that AA works, you have to show evidence for specificity. This review summarizes that specificity is where AA and other 12 step programs do not have scientific evidence (yet) to support it. When randomized to normalize for “hey, I’m committed to stop drinking” studies are mixed with one showing that AA is actually counterproductive. > > Here’s some relevant quotes: > > [Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/?tool=pubmed) > > AA may work simply because it is a organization where committed people go and it has a social network of people with experience that can help you out. Long story short, if you want to improve remission rates you need to have a scientific basis for the approach. Find out what exactly “works” within AA and distill it (oops) from all the mumbo-jumbo, counterproductive stuff. This is very interesting, but what it does more than anything is demonstrate that there is no scientific consensus as the the effectiveness of AA. I have no doubt that, if effective, most of the effect comes from social factors. However, I also suspect that (again, if effective) that effect can be traced to its “cult-like” elements as well - after all, the “mumbo jumbo” is at least in part why actual cults “work” to modify behaviour, too. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/226 "2010-10-25T14:13:12Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > My magic rock may cause coins to land face-up more often than face-down, though the evidence for this is from one small study where I tossed six coins on the ground and five of them landed face-up and should not be regarded as conclusive. That ain’t the point, and you know it. Whether the study is faulty or not, it exists. You should read the material before you get your snark on. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/227 "2010-10-25T14:30:17Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Think of it like this: You have a poster (in the Pit even) who discloses that he is a cancer patient and had undergone chemo. Is it in good taste to start making bald jokes? Not really comparable. More like, imagine someone’s just gotten diagnosed with Celiac’s, and I offer to make them a batch of cookies. Which would be funny. > [@Malthus](#): > > That ain’t the point, and you know it. Whether the study is faulty or not, it exists. You should read the material before you get your snark on. Yes, that’s \*exactly \*the point. Didn’t \*you \*see that I \*did a study \*and \*proved \*that my magic rock helps coins land face-up?! ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/228 "2010-10-25T14:42:08Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Yes, that’s \*exactly \*the point. Didn’t \*you \*see that I \*did a study \*and \*proved \*that my magic rock helps coins land face-up?! No, the point was your inaccurate summary of the _published_ science. > [@](#): > > The most encouraging studies are showing that AA is no better or no worse than any other method, or no method at all. This isn’t true overall (see the latest meta-analysis posted above by \*\* heatmiserfl\*\*) and it isn’t true for the Cochrane review, either. The reality is that the published studies are mixed. There is no _scientific_ consensus yet as to whether AA works or not. I guess if you feel like ignoring the published studies, in favour of making up the evidence, you can say whatever you like. Though what exactly differentiates you from those peddling “woo” if you do, I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/229 "2010-10-25T14:45:44Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Yes, that’s \*exactly \*the point. Didn’t \*you \*see that I \*did a study \*and \*proved \*that my magic rock helps coins land face-up?! I burning your log! ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/230 "2010-10-25T15:15:30Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > …Of course, it’s only one troll post, and every does one occasionally. But, if you knew it would piss people off, then there’s no reason to be defending yourself in the pit. You got what you wanted… Wait…do you think it is trolling if you post something even though you know it will piss people off? That’s not any definition of trolling that I ever heard. I know folks consider it trolling if you post _specifically_ to piss folks off, but that is clearly and obviously different than posting _despite knowing_ it will piss people off. As for the jokes in this thread, the pit is a slimey grimey place. It really is. If you can’t stand the heat, just don’t even come in here. That way you never have to worry about getting offended. Just assume at the gate that if you are the type to take offence, you WILL get offended in the pit. It is the one place on this board where good taste is specifically not expected. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/231 "2010-10-25T15:59:33Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > If you read the review article I posted, you’d see that apparently that was exactly what was done for at least one of the studies. Otherwise, like any epidemiology study, you normalize for certain categories… Yes, you can try, but with alcoholism, I have doubts. My real concern is with blind interpretation of any research that one has not done oneself. Anyone who has done any kind of study with this kind of subject knows how malleable data can be. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > …A bunch of sleepy people are in a hall. Some sit on their chairs, don’t move and succumb to their sleepiness. Others get up and walk across the room to get coffee. Most put cream in their coffee because they are told that cream keeps them awake. Still others get up and move around every time they feel sleepy but don’t take coffee. No one takes cream alone (12 steps bare bones, no other support that’s involved in AA). Most the people who commit to staying awake, stay awake. However, the ones who drink coffee are the most likely ones the ones who stay awake. Unfortunately, people attribute their alertness to cream which always accompanies the coffee and state unequivocally that “cream works”. They also state that sleepiness is a disease that needs to be cured by cream. And some people were asked to take coffee with cream just for the sake of the study, even though they hate it. (They pretended to drink a little, just to be polite, but actually spat it out.) Also, some are just lactose intolerant. And some people react to caffeine more than others. And the coffee that has cream in it is free, the black coffee is not. And some people drink the coffee with cream only because they’re hungry. And some people drink the coffee just because it’s there, and they want to be sociable. And some of those take a few sips only. These subsets are not mutually exclusive, either. They overlap, and moreover, with time, they change their status. Oh, and at some point they ran out of real cream, and substituted non-dairy. And most important: the people in the hall are all sleepy for different reasons. Some are sleepy because they haven’t slept for days. Others are sleepy because they just woke up, and haven’t slept enough. When the people come out of the hall, you don’t have this information, and even if you asked them, they were pretty sleepy in there, so they really don’t remember what happened very well. You just ask them how they took their coffee, and see if they stay awake. One of the problems with people who take one or two lower division classes in economics is that they weren’t listening when the professor said, “All other things being the same…” All other things are rarely the same, and this is especially so with addiction. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/232 "2010-10-25T19:42:43Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Yes. But again, that’s a normal body response to continued, chronic stimulation. Tolerance and conditioning (with some real brain damage). These are reversible and the ease to reversing them depends on the severity and length of addiction. > > Would fever be considered a disease? No, it’s a normal response to a pathogen. > > Addiction is typically a response to environmental stress. Or, for very addictive substances, its simply a hijacking of the body’s normal pleasure systems by the powerful drug. It is not a disease. There may be some genetic predisposition for addictive behavior but, again, that doesn’t mean it’s a disease. > > Yes, I know, defining a disease is ambiguous and it’s hard to draw a line but I think calling addiction a disease is counterproductive. Have you read any of the studies on alcoholism and genetics? If not, you need to read some of them. I don’t have the cites right now but I do know that the results are rather amazing. For example, in some studies they tracked identical twins who were separated at birth. This controls for the nurture factor in nature vs.nurture debate. The findings, IIRC, were that if one twin was and alkie the other twin had a 90% chance of being an alkie. I will find the study and link to it later. The results showed that there was an extremely strong genetic influence on alcoholism. Is it a disease? Well it is according to the DSM-4. [Linky](http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI_278/Other/Clerkship/Didactics/Readings/Alcoholism%20and%20Alcohol%20Abuse.pdf)(warning, pdf) Slee ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/233 "2010-10-25T19:49:32Z")
[**Stinkin’ Thinkin’**](http://stinkin-thinkin.com/welcome/) Good start for anyone wishing to rid themselves of their **AA** zombie-like addiction. And stay sober of course. There’s hope for _some_ of you yet. ETA: [**The Definitive Stinkin’ Thinkin’ Greatest Hits of All Time**](http://stinkin-thinkin.com/stinkin-thinkin-essential-reading/). No further comment needed. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/234 "2010-10-25T21:41:27Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Have you read any of the studies on alcoholism and genetics? If not, you need to read some of them. I don’t have the cites right now but I do know that the results are rather amazing. > > For example, in some studies they tracked identical twins who were separated at birth. This controls for the nurture factor in nature vs.nurture debate. The findings, IIRC, were that if one twin was and alkie the other twin had a 90% chance of being an alkie. I will find the study and link to it later. The results showed that there was an extremely strong genetic influence on alcoholism. > > Is it a disease? Well it is according to the DSM-4. [Linky](http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI_278/Other/Clerkship/Didactics/Readings/Alcoholism%20and%20Alcohol%20Abuse.pdf)(warning, pdf) > > Slee DSM compiles descriptions of disorders. Also, a genetic predisposition does not define a disease. I hate continue quibbling but you see the point of my post, right? Addiction is simply losing equilibrium in the normal motivation/reward system. I think that once people realize this, they can deal with the problem more effectively. Of course, the consequences of serious alcoholism - liver disease, brain damage etc. can be considered a real disease or bodily injury. I wanted to add (thinking of RedFury’s links) that I’ve met a few people who go to AA and it appears as though they’ve replaced on addictive behavior for another. Sure, AA is much better than being an alcoholic but there must be some unresolved issue(s) there. Of course, I’m not talking about everyone so don’t go bullistic on me! ---
**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:** [October 26, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/235 "2010-10-26T16:45:39Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I hate continue quibbling but you see the point of my post, right? Addiction is simply losing equilibrium in the normal motivation/reward system. I think that once people realize this, they can deal with the problem more effectively. Yes, I see the point, but the assumption that alcoholism is a simple matter of “equilibrium” is an oversimplification. Most alcoholics start drinking during (often before) adolescence, when the brain is going through significant physiological changes. While it starts as a “coping” mechanism (obviously it isn’t really coping), normal pyscho/social/biological development is retarded, sometimes severely. Both the brain and the psyche are effectively damaged, to the point where simple will-power is not going to bring about immediate normalcy. A 40-year-old alcoholic is usually a person who is emotionally about 16, and whose brain-receptors are never going to heal completely, and to what degree they do heal will take a lot more than just an intellectual understanding of reward systems. You can’t just “think” yourself out of alcoholism. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/236 "2010-10-26T17:37:09Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Yes, I see the point, but the assumption that alcoholism is a simple matter of “equilibrium” is an oversimplification. Most alcoholics start drinking during (often before) adolescence, when the brain is going through significant physiological changes. While it starts as a “coping” mechanism (obviously it isn’t really coping), normal pyscho/social/biological development is retarded, sometimes severely. Both the brain and the psyche are effectively damaged, to the point where simple will-power is not going to bring about immediate normalcy. A 40-year-old alcoholic is usually a person who is emotionally about 16, and whose brain-receptors are never going to heal completely, and to what degree they do heal will take a lot more than just an intellectual understanding of reward systems. You can’t just “think” yourself out of alcoholism. Not that I disagree with you altogether, but I believe you’re falling into a generalization. IMO the mental health of an alcoholic should be determined on a case by case scenario _and_ done by a professional in said field. The way AA deals with normal human emotions is simply absurd, if not down right insane: [**Tearing Down The Ego In AA**](http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2009/06/03/tearing-down-the-ego-in-alcoholics-anonymous/) ---
**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:** [October 26, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/237 "2010-10-26T19:42:27Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Not that I disagree with you altogether, but I believe you’re falling into a generalization. IMO the mental health of an alcoholic should be determined on a case by case scenario _and_ done by a professional in said field. > > The way AA deals with normal human emotions is simply absurd, if not down right insane: [**Tearing Down The Ego In AA**](http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2009/06/03/tearing-down-the-ego-in-alcoholics-anonymous/) I admit that I’m referring to those who get to the point where they are forced to take action. That is, they can’t continue to drink the way they are drinking any longer. Usually it takes many years for them to get to this point, and over all those years they have been responding to psychological stresses mostly, if not entirely, by drinking–whether it be daily, or weekend binging. These are people whose brains have undeniably been altered by the chemical. I think we’ve all seen autopsies of [alcoholic brain damage](http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,26637,26992,27059,27183,27284&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=alcoholic+brain+damage&cp=17&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=7izHTISrJIOqsAPk7qmiDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQsAQwAA&biw=1280&bih=685). As for AA, I think the terms and slogans they use do seem strange at first, but after reading the actual literature (not just the literature of people who are pissed off at AA for whatever reasons), and talking with people who have used it, it’s pretty much based on standard-issue Freudian psycho-analysis. What’s more, they don’t force it on anyone, and AA itself is not a business. Of the people I’ve known in AA, I had no idea they were in AA after knowing them for a while as fairly normal people. They never talk or act like people in a cult. Where are all these AA zombies? I have yet to meet one. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/238 "2010-10-26T19:58:41Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > it’s pretty much based on standard-issue Freudian psycho-analysis Oh, you mean the shit that’s been completely discredited as wrong and useless, to be admired only from a historical context? \*That \*“standard-issue Freudian psycho-analysis”? ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/239 "2010-10-26T20:59:19Z")
sigh ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/240 "2010-10-26T21:11:53Z")
Well, it could be that \*\*guizot \*\*was just using layman’s terms and didn’t really \*mean \*that AA was using some crackpot bullshit. So I asked. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705.md?page=13)