# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/161 "2010-10-21T19:31:11Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > …which is because 95% of alcoholics don’t _really_ want to stop drinking. > > 100% of those who truly want to get sober do so. AA has nothing to do with it. BINGO! Which is exactly what the study linked more than once in this thread shows. It show a significant reduction in recidivism if someone actively committed to do something about the drinking. AA was no better than any other commitment. Again, commitment needs to be long term and if AA is not the proper choice for some people’s personalities, I’m sure it could turn out to actually be counterproductive and people who think AA is the end all may not seek other forms of treatment/therapy/etc. So please, people, when there is no statistically significant difference between one variable and another, the change you see under a certain condition cannot be attributed to whatever that thing is. In the case of AA, people who succeeded with AA was not because of AA per say, but because they stayed committed to a treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/162 "2010-10-21T19:31:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is that anything like “You always find it the last place you look”? Pretty much, yes. **Malthus** - thanks for the cites. I will read them when I have more time. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 21, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/163 "2010-10-21T19:31:26Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Duplicate of what I posted in my pit thread: Um, you mean this one? Right here? That you just posted it in now? I think you put this in the wrong spot. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/164 "2010-10-21T19:33:41Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Um, you mean this one? Right here? That you just posted it in now? > > I think you put this in the wrong spot. Oops. Thanks for pointing it out. Meant to put it in the AA thread. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/165 "2010-10-21T19:40:22Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > [We can trade cites all day long.](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=490) > Yes, you read that right. > > [And here’s the Washington Post.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html) > [And here’s George Vaillant, a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous.](http://cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm) To say that different scientists reached different conclusions is not the same thing as saying that there is no scientific evidence for the worth of the program - merely that its worth is scientifically controversial. “All the studies” do not show the same thing. To my mind at least, it makes a certain amount of sense that joining a group of like-minded people, who make a committment to a particular cause, is likely through the power of peer influence to strengthen one’s committment to that cause - again, this is the basis of most religious groups. Humans are social animals. An addiction and one’s peer group often work synergistically - if your friends all drink and smoke, you are more likely too, as well; conversely, one would reasonably expect that joining a support group dedicated to not drinking would have somewhat of the opposite effect. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/166 "2010-10-21T19:47:07Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Jesus fucking Christ, what is with these anti-science assholes? Look, douche-bag, if 5% of alcoholics quit on their own every year without assistance, then the fact that 5% of AA attendees quit isn’t evidence that the program works. What the fuck is wrong with people that they can’t understand this simple fact? Hell, if you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to read some of the posted links, there have been studies that showed that AA attendees did worse then people who went it on their own. Actual scientific evidence that AA is harmful! But thanks so much for your valuable anecdotal evidence anyway, moron. Dude, is the NIH anti-science? If not, read this. > [@](#): > > When we found significant independent associations between 1-year duration of treatment or AA groups and 16-year outcomes, we conducted follow-up logistic regression analyses to examine differences between individuals who had no treatment (or AA) and those who obtained different durations of treatment (or AA). Individuals who received 27 weeks or more of treatment in the first year were more likely to be abstinent and less likely to have drinking problems at 16 years than were individuals who remained untreated in the first year (Table 3). Compared to individuals who did not enter AA in the first year, individuals who participated in AA for 9 weeks or more had better 16-year alcohol-related and self-efficacy outcomes (Table 3). Some of these differences were quite substantial; only 34% of individuals who did not participate in AA in the first year were abstinent at 16 years, compared to 67% of individuals who participated in AA for 27 weeks or more. [Link](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220012/?tool=pmcentrez). Or is is anti-science because you don’t agree with it? Slee ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/167 "2010-10-21T20:25:28Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To say that different scientists reached different conclusions is not the same thing as saying that there is no scientific evidence for the worth of the program - merely that its worth is scientifically controversial. Not among the leadership of AA. One of those quotes was from an AA Trustee. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/168 "2010-10-21T20:29:01Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Not among the leadership of AA. One of those quotes was from an AA Trustee. I don’t see the point you are attempting to make. An AA Trustee concludes that AA doesn’t work - and scientists as far as I know not affiliated with AA concludes that it does. Is there some reason I should prefer the one over the other? Assuming they are all researching in good faith, that is. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/169 "2010-10-21T20:36:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t see the point you are attempting to make. An AA Trustee concludes that AA doesn’t work - and scientists as far as I know not affiliated with AA concludes that it does. Is there some reason I should prefer the one over the other? > > Assuming they are all researching in good faith, that is. That AA Trustee is [Dr George Vaillant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eman_Vaillant). “Dr. Vaillant has received the Foundations Fund Prize for Research in Psychiatry from the American Psychiatric Association, the Strecker Award from The Pennsylvania Hospital, the Burlingame Award from The Institute for Living, and the Jellinek Award for research in alcoholism. Most recently he received the research prize of the International Psychogeriatric Society.” He’s not just some guy. He’s an MD specializing in alcoholism and an advocate of AA and one of its Trustees. And even his work shows incredible evidence that AA doesn’t work more than no treatment at all. CBT Recovery and Science Based Medicine both reference a study involving 42,000 Americans and 4,500 alcoholics that conclude that people who had no treatment of any kind did better than those in AA. One of the quoted studies from either this thread or the other only involves 654 northern Californians. The point is that I can find a dozen more cites for you if you’d like. The majority of the evidence seems to indicate that AA doesn’t help. And frankly, this isn’t surprising given AA’s unscientific approach to the problem. ---
**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 21, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/170 "2010-10-21T20:40:01Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > You can’t have it both ways. That’s true, it’s not therapy, but it applies cognitive therapy concept, but no one is treating you. It’s not treatment any more than reading a self-help book is. It’s a combination of a self-help book and a support group. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/171 "2010-10-21T20:42:45Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > That’s true, it’s not therapy, but it applies cognitive therapy concept, but no one is treating you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/172 "2010-10-21T20:43:59Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Not among the leadership of AA. One of those quotes was from an AA Trustee. [Your own cite](http://cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm) Look, I can cherry pick to support my points too! > [@](#): > > So, is AA or 12-step treatment useful, or is it harmful? > > First of all, **to any individual who has succeeded at getting sober by means of AA it is successful**. You are not a statistic. Your advice can be useful to someone who is thinking about quitting drinking, and nothing in any study diminishes the value of that experience. > > But to generalize from your experience, and make predictions about what will happen to another person? Alcohol abuse is so variable in its nature and effect that it just isn’t reasonable to do that. The bolding, naturally, is mine. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/173 "2010-10-21T20:47:34Z")
I cherry-picked actual evidence and you cherry-picked ultimately meaningless platitudes. You could replace “AA” with “homeopathy” and it would be just as valid. “To any individual who has succeeded at getting sober by means of homeopathy it is successful. You are not a statistic.” ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/174 "2010-10-21T20:49:16Z")
That was from your cite numbnuts ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/175 "2010-10-21T20:50:55Z")
So you are obviously taking the parts of the study that you agree with and calling the parts you don’t agree with meaningless. Nice to know where you stand. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/176 "2010-10-21T20:51:37Z")
I’m aware. The point being that from my cite I quoted actual relevant data. You quoted hollow pleasantries. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/177 "2010-10-21T20:52:29Z")
Go on… ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/178 "2010-10-21T20:52:41Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > So you are obviously taking the parts of the study that you agree with and calling the parts you don’t agree with meaningless. Nice to know where you stand. “First of all, if it worked for you, you are not a statistic! Now, anyway, the statistics show that it doesn’t work.” I decided to quote the second sentence and you decided to quote the first. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/179 "2010-10-21T20:53:30Z")
Tell me more! ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/180 "2010-10-21T20:55:18Z")
Shucks. Like believers of astrology, religion and conspiracy theories you’ve resorted to babbling incoherently. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705.md?page=10)