Shodan and AClockWorkMelon

OK, that I can’t disagree with. AA clearly works for some people, since it’s free (?) I can’t see an issue with trying it. Unless someone can show some evidence that it’s worse than the alternatives, either due to success rate or due to some other factor.

However are people really trying to ‘discredit’ AA? Or merely trying to insert some solid research so that people can make informed choices? If nothing else AA requires an investment of time that perhaps could be used better.

I really don’t know. I got the impression you were trying to say AA was some sort of magic bullet based on flawed reasoning. I’m sorry, I see you weren’t saying that now.

ETA: Is there a thread somewhere discussing peoples experiences with AA, negative or positive. I’m interested in how it’s managed to generate such passion. I think I’m missing something.

SD

It’s useful to remember that any studies that disagree with one’s personal conclusions are 1) flawed, 2) a scam funded by Big Pharma, 3) la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you, or 4) all of the above.

Its seems that most people who have a strong objection to AA, object to the program being mandated.

I think that’s fine – it’s a very fair objection.

In my state, if you have a DUI and qualify for diversion (diversion = being diverted from a prison sentence after being convicted), you will be sent to a scheduled 7 week,16 hour counselling series, that you have to pay for ($75). I don’t see that as inherently better than allowing people to choose free AA meetings at the time and place of their choosing. At any rate, its obviously quite debatable whether court-ordered AA is of any benefit. Absent a “sincere desire to stop drinking” AA will tell you, you get little from the experience.

So, separate from the issue of whether courts should mandate it (which is not the fault of AA as an organization if they do so) is AA something to warn people away from, particularly people who cannot afford any other formal treatment program or who lack their own social support structures? I would say no. At worst, it does no harm.

sleestak, nothing of what I posted was intended to imply that your sobriety, or that of any other Doper, is not a great thing or that it should not be celebrated. I apologize for giving that impression.

Regards,
Shodan

I am not going to wade into the AA argument, but getting back to the OP:

I read the thread in question, and I think you’re way off base calling out Melon and Shodan alone for their behavior there. It’s true that “a thread where a person asked for help” unfortunately devolved into a schoolyard shouting match over the effectiveness of AA. But a *whole bunch *of posters – including you – had a hand in making that happen. Just because those two were not on your side of the argument does not mean they were the only ones responsible for the thread’s deterioration. There was plenty of bad behavior to go around in there.

I blame Bush. After all, he is a recovering alcoholic.

Regards,
Shodan

Having attended thousands of AA meetings, I would like to offer some observations about AA and the various debates about its effectiveness.

For many people, including folks like DangleYourModifier, attending a few AA meetings is very useful regardless of whether they decide to stick with it or not. DYM is unsure of what his relationship to alcohol is. AA meetings are full of people who have struggled with the same question. While their answers may be biased toward concluding that anyone who drinks and has problems is an alcoholic, in my experience veteran AA folks are usually interested in letting the newcomer reach his own conclusions based on his experiences and what he hears at the meetings. AA in my experience has not been interested in defining alcoholism at the individual level. If a person decides that there is a relationship in his life between alcohol and problems, AA will definitely advise that total abstinence is the answer, and will offer advice and help aimed at achieving abstinence.

AA is not a treatment program. It does not claim to be something that can be “done” to a person. It is a fellowship. It is notoriously difficult to analyze statistically in a way that is acceptable to those who feel that their sobriety is in some way a result of the program of AA. I think that scientists recognize these difficulties.

One of the difficulties is defining a population of people who have “tried” AA. Back in the early 80s, court systems began “sentencing” people to attend AA. This caused huge issues within AA groups. AA had, before that time, been almost entirely voluntary. People who showed up at their first meeting were usually at a point of desperation. While some may have come to placate someone in their lives, most were there because they had reached the end of their ropes. When the courts began requiring AA attendance, groups had major discussions about whether to sign “court slips” or not. Some groups decided not to sign, other agreed to sign and became slip-signing mills. Some committed members turned away from these groups, while others decided that it was their mission to try to help those who showed up involuntarily. All of this is a long way of asking “who do you count as having attended AA for some period of time?” Does someone who attended three meetings a week for a year as part of a probation agreement count?

For me, the suggestion that anyone who has questions about their relationship with alcohol attend a few AA meetings is sound advice that doesn’t need any science to back it up. Whether or not AA can be regarded as a successful program for helping people abstain from drinking, it certainly is a way to talk to some people who have grappled with alcohol as a problem. This seems to me to be a useful thing even for those who end up deciding that AA is a crock. In AA I have heard a lot about “functional alcoholics”. These are folks who are considered by people in AA to be alcoholics, but who through force of will or whatever means manage to achieve and maintain success in life without abstaining. I have known lots of people like this. Some of them have attended AA for a while, learned a lot about alcohol from it, and moved on. Some have occasional issues with alcohol. For all I know, some may be white-knuckling their way through life. It doesn’t matter.

When anyone asks me questions that approach the issue of “am I an alcoholic”, I suggest that they attend some AA beginners’ meetings. Not because I have judged that they are alcoholics, or because I am certain that AA will be the solution to whatever is wrong in their lives that makes them ask the questions, but so that they can answer the questions for themselves with a few data points outside of their own experience.

And to sleestak, my experience with AA over the years has somehow made it easy for me to understand why some people have negative feelings toward it. First, for many years, people were forced to go. There was a Supreme Court ruling that made mandatory attendance illegal, but probation officers still seem to want evidence of attendance in my neck of the woods, because I still see people getting slips signed at meetings. Second, there is the religious/spiritual aspect. That just pisses some people off. Third, there is the cultish aspect of the whole thing, the slogans, the assurances that you just need to keep coming to meetings and working the steps and something will happen. And last, for now, there are the eternal and probably unanswerable questions of if and how it works at all. Besides pointing me at the How It Works statement in the Big Book, I had several brief conversations early in my sobriety that went like this:

Me: But how does it (the AA program) work?
Veteran: Just fine.
Me: ??%^###??

Crotalus, sober in AA for a long time

Forced attendance is one of the worst ideas evah! My old man (AA, died sober) used to bitch about it as destructive and futile, even though occasionally it would work, mostly it ruined the commonality of the meeting, which is crucial for any positive effects, that sense of “we” helping “us”. To my way of thinking, such impositions as these would screw up any scientific analysis, as it would degrade the validity of the sample.

Besides, how is any of this quantifiable? Who decides if someone is an alcoholic? The AA members have their own method, a guys stands up and says so. As far as they are concerned, this registers at 1,000 millidrunks, no further measurement is necessary. Clearly, this is wholly inadequate for any sort of scientific rigor. Until such problems could be resolved, and I very much doubt that they can be, a scientifically valid analysis is impossible, and the results unreliable.

Bad science is not an improvement over bad superstition.

A dry drunk is not recovering.

I think that the point that you are missing is that what works for any given specific alcoholic is very, very personal to that person and has everything to do with temperament. To clarify: If I am an alcoholic any random thing that I try is not going to work. There is one specific thing that will work and what works is going to have everything to do with my temperament.

So what do we know? AA works for some people, though seems to have about the same success rate as any other thing out there. Referring back to the OP of that other thread, the responsible thing to advise him to do is to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. The way that you naysayers in that thread are talking lends itself to debunking a whole line of attack for the OP.

See what I mean?

Hmmmm. So the data show that the success rate of AA is the same as that of not using AA to quit drinking.

There are claims that a certain set of people do have an advantage working through AA, the people ‘it works for’. These people, through AA, have an increased chance of achieving sobriety.

Would that not indicate that there is a different subset of people who’s drive to sobriety is impaired by AA?

I think that Binarydrone and kidchameleon are saying some good and true things here. An AA friend of mine likes to say “I can’t prove that God got me sober, but He’s the only one I asked.” I am sure that within my circle of friends there are people who are unsuited for various reasons to getting sober in AA, and some of them are sober. I believe that sticking with AA would have been an impediment to them getting straightened out. Obviously, since I’m still in AA, I know lots of people for whom AA is the only thing that has worked, and none of them seems willing to try any alternatives.

I think it is likely that some of the people who are successful in AA would not be successful through any other means, but I don’t think that there is any way that science can nail that down.

In other words, if five per cent of those who try AA, whatever that means, are successful in staying sober, we have no way of knowing whether those individuals would have been successful using one of the other methods that has a similar percentage of success.

I know lots of successful AA folks who had previously tried other means and failed. I wonder if there are any studies addressing that and the converse situation?

Well, I suppose we could somehow convince recovered drunks to start drinking again, and then start over, give it an objective, scientific test.

The two issues with this are [list=A][li]It appears from the data that 5% are also successful with no method at all.[/li][li]As kidchamleon mentions, if 5% are successful overall, for everyone who is helped by AA must be matched by someone else who is hurt by it. [/list][/li]Regards,
Shodan

Right. For your A, I’m assuming that there may be differences between the two groups, that those who were helped by AA include some people who would not have been helped by nothing at all, and vice versa. And for your B, I was thinking that “hurt” meant just that they didn’t get better, but I realize now that we may be talking additional harm.

Thanks.

“Harm” in the sense of “being made less likely to maintain sobriety”, in case that is not clear.

Regards,
Shodan

Got it, thanks again. I have the personal perspective that the things I tried that didn’t work didn’t make me less likely to get sober when I found the right way for me. I may be wrong about that, and the mileage of others may obviously vary.

There are several references to AA being mandated by courts in some states, but I don’t recall seeing any cites for such. I know that courts will mandate that an offender get counseling or treatment of some sort (usually as part of a plea bargain) and document that it took place, but I’ve never heard of someone being ordered specifically to AA (which, as Crotalus has eloquently described, is not really a treatment) or any other program. My son had to get weekly testing, but that was primarily for the state’s nursing board, and to prove that he was undergoing some form of treatment in exchange for reducing his sentence to probation and expunging his record once he completed the treatment.

I’m stuck with second-hand evidence on this one; I was never ordered to AA by a court, but I have signed the court slips of hundreds of people who claimed that they were so ordered. And I have the following from Wikipedia

Lets take the worsetest case scenario. If we were to assume that someone, for whatever reason, wanted to prove that AA was ineffective, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, how might they proceed? Clearly, they would want people who are “forced” into AA to be included in their sample, since according to AA they would be the people least likely to have a positive outcome. And they might support such an inclusion with the “objective” finding that said person is an alcoholic, as determined by the courts. Hence, they might say “Well, this person is an alcoholic, and wasn’t helped, therefore AA failed in this instance.”

A proponent of AA methods would respond that this poisons the sampling by tossing in “ringers” that AA proponents would not expect to be helped. With good cause, in my estimation. And if the sampling is not valid, the results are not valid.

For this reason, if for no other, I would be suspicious of any “scientific” testing of AA principles, whether affirming or denying those principles. Bad science isn’t truth, its “truthiness”.