Or, that you’ve never met a realist who’s never been called a cynic.
Look, stories about how great AA are; they’re nice. But right now there are Scientologists telling their friends nice little stories about how great Scientology is, and how it really worked for them and everyone they know, and how Scientology is the only reason they got their shit together.
And there’s lots of smart connected Scientologists you can hang out with if you join.
And that would be great, but they’re so convinced Scientology is the answer that they want to pass laws making Scientology mandatory for everyone who doesn’t have their shit together. And judges listen to them and make Scientology mandatory for offenders.
Now, the scientific evidence is that Scientology isn’t helping anyone. 2% of people who become Scientologists get their shit together (and of course they’ll be the vocal ones!), and 2% of people who don’t join also get their shit together.
Will you be on here calling the people who think this is a bad development cynics?
Might be that whole “fighting ignorance” thing. Sort of gives people the idea that the stated purpose of the board is at least partially scientific in nature, and that truth and evidence are worthier goals than feel-good anecdotes and well-meaning programs that seem to do not much more than nothing for the majority of participants. But hey, y’know, it’s a well-meaning program, just leave it alone, right? Just like homeopathy. And inventing spurious correlations between vaccines and diseases. And power crystals, astrology, and the whole rest of the gamut of well-meaning shit that doesn’t work.
Being well-meaning, and hey, maybe even harmless (beyond being a waste of time and energy) does not grant an idea, organization, program, or person immunity to criticism and questioning. If AA works for someone, and plenty of people are convinced it works for them, more power to them and all that, I don’t think anyone wants to piss on their parade. But for people seeking help who aren’t already in such a program? I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point them elsewhere, and articulate why. If that’s a “hard-on”, so be it, I suppose.
So, they shouldn’t go to rehab because its too expensive, and they shouldn’t go to AA because its too useless. Just fucked I suppose?
I don’t agree with that, and I don’t think that AA, as an organization, supports it either. There is some evidence that people forced into AA have the worst outcomes of all.
As fucked as he’d be in AA, anyway, considering it doesn’t increase a participant’s chances of success. As if any of this is relevant to the OP’s problem, who, frankly, didn’t seem to be an alcoholic. When he does get drunk he’s violent but he only gets drunk twice a year. He isn’t addicted, just dangerous if and when he does drink in excess. My advice to him was to put his foot down (the opposite of the advice AA seems to give, which is that you’re a helpless disease victim who can’t help himself) and stop buying alcohol altogether and to ask his family and friends to enforce that behavior. That advice wouldn’t be of much use to someone who was actually an alcoholic but my goal wasn’t to help alcoholics, it was to help the OP.
Having attended many meetings personally, and not being a fan of AA, I also think it’s ridiculous to not acknowledge that AA has given the support to many people who have then been able to abstain from alcohol. I found the meetings incredibly depressing but they have and do help a lot of people quit booze and stay clean.
It’s what ever it takes - AA can definitely work for some people and yet not for some others. elucidator has spoken clearly and wisely in this thread.
I also think, having read the original thread that spurred this disagreement, if anyone should be pitted it should be twickster.
The point is simple. There doesn’t need to be evidence that it works, just evidence that it doesn’t make things worse. Then you can even get the placebo effect to work.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people on this board who have used the program successfully. So of course saying it doesn’t work is going to piss them off and hijack a thread. It doesn’t matter whether you think it’s the truth. I can give Melon a pass for never having done anything like this before, and not knowing what would happen. But Shodan knows what he’s doing. He’s in for the pissing people off. I mean, he won’t even remove a simple two lines from his posts when he found out it annoyed people.
Finally, I point out that all three studies gave widely varying results. Until we get similar results, we don’t know that the studies weren’t severely flawed.
Finally finally, I point out that, anecdotal vs. testing doesn’t mean that the anecdotes are wrong. It means that the way it works isn’t applicable to the experimental method. For example, Water witching still works–just by the user subconsciously looking for signs of water rather than some mystical mumbo jumbo. Eye movement desensitization still has successful outcomes. They may not be better than other things, but, as pointed out, AA is free, and some people believe it has helped them. And there’s no downside. Melon’s jump from “doesn’t do anything” to “don’t do it” was the ignorance in that thread.
Good point. For once, the jerkishness was not made with the protection of being a moderator. She really does seem to have a problem with flying off the handle. I think it was worse than anything I’ve ever said, and I’ve gotten 3 Warnings.
And my bad, mea fuckup, didn’t read the originating thread, just reacting to what’s here. So, yeah, a guy who drinks twice a year and makes a mess of it isn’t an alcoholic, he’s a slow learner.
So I guess that makes this a Seinfeld pit thread, its about nothing.
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.
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.
Project Match, the largest treatment study ever done on alcoholics, found AA to be as effective as cognitive behavioral therapy and something called “motivational ehancement therapy.”
I’d call that, better than nothing and as good as anything.
I feel the same way I always do when I argue with woo woos; annoyed that ignorant assholes like that are the ones writing textbooks in Texas.
P.s. you never said how you feel about the Scientologist’s attempt to mandate Scientology treatments for convicted offenders. Do you support them like you do AA, and if not, why?
If that’s what the evidence shows then argue the fucking evidence. Don’t waste people’s time arguing that AA must work for everyone because it worked for Daddy.
I never, ever said that AA “must” or “will” work for everyone. That is an obviously untrue statement.
It’s free and voluntary, and its one thing you can try. If all it does is give people the idea that you can keep trying to clean up, I say its a benefit with almost no downside, other than, what, a little wasted time? C’mon.
Sometimes I feel like everyone could use a little searching moral inventory, myself included.
If it was voluntary in every case, then I wouldn’t care so much. I would still think there were problems with the approach, but people would be doing it of their own free will.
If it becomes mandated (which it is, in some cases) then at the least there had better be strong scientific evidence supporting it, and not just that, it had better be shown to be more effective than equivalent secular programs.
That “little wasted time” is time that could be better spent trying to find an alternative that works. People (especially ones that are forced by a court to attend AA meetings) may be inaccurately labeled alcoholics. Since alcoholism is a disease (right? right?) this amounts to misdiagnosis (as if it matters considering AA’s “treatment” of the “disease” is what amounts to an exorcism). People can find themselves addicted to the treatment itself due to its cult-like environment (the steps tell you that you’re helpless and that only God and AA can save you - if you fail it’s not because AA’s “treatment” of your “disease” failed, but rather because you failed).
Maybe none of this seems like a big deal to you but I, for one, am not surprised AA isn’t successful.
Over a decade ago, having gotten in trouble for having weed (a depressing story), one of the stipulations was to attend AA meetings. Kinda stupid, I know - was legally forced to attend AA and not NA, I had to attend a meeting every weekday and 3 on weekends for a total of ten per week.
The point I am making is during this time of attending well over 100 meetings, while encountering many who relapsed - not only during past attendances but during the time I was attending these meetings, I also met many people who, through the AA program, had stayed sober for years, some of them for over 2 decades. Could these people have quit on their own? No one will know. But the fact is they were able to quit and did so with the aid of the AA program.
I personally felt that AA was nothing less or more than a religion based on staying sober, one which wallowed in sobriety. It definitely was not for me.
But stop saying “it just does not work”. It has and does work for many who attend. To outright say “it just doesn’t work” is absurd. Not for everyone… but for some it has and does indeed work.
To attack the fact that AA has helped many stay sober as simply evidence of the anecdotal kind is borderline trolling.
Just as well as just about anything else you can do. Including nothing at all. Alcoholics can and do clean up all on their own. The number who do just happens to coincide with the number who do with the help of AA. That’s a really big coincidence.