As far as I can tell all those studies being thrown around seem to show is that an equal number of people get sober in AA as get sober without it. I for the life of me can’t see how we get from that to “therefore AA doesn’t work”. I am also baffled by the dogmatic insistence in ignoring the very real problems with those touted studies methodology. Therefore I must conclude that the position that AA does not work is a matter of faith that is not based on empirical evidence.
I will continue to believe that there is hope for alcoholics that seek help.
Nobody knows
I make a claim that if I throw a large handful of pennies to the ground, the way that I toss them makes them come up “heads”. Can I claim success if only some of the coins come up “heads”? Can I just point out the coins I want to? Can I claim success because none of them would have come up heads if I hadn’t have thrown them using my special technique?
Now that I’ve answered your question, BinaryDrone, I’d love it if you’d answer mine, also with a simple yes or no: Does anyone get sober in AA who doesn’t truly want to become sober?
That is a pretty easy one. In my experience, no.* My observation is that the people that get sober are the ones that want to and that follow the program and the ones that do not are the folks that don’t really want to be sober.
note to Shodan and company: See how easy that was? I was asked a yes/no question and I answered it! You to can do this if you really want!
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
…I assert, without equivocation, that 100% of such people will become sober no matter what they do. It just so happens that most of them join AA, because that’s the norm in our society…
[/QUOTE]
This is also a very excellent point and rather in light with what I have been trying to say. That what works to get a specific alcoholic sober has everything to do with that persons temperament. There are some that need AA’s help to get sober, some that can do it on their own, some that follow other programs like Rational Recovery.
The overall point here is that (referring way back to that other thread that caused this Pitting in the first place) is that is is incredibly irresponsible to discourage a specific person from finding the path to sobriety that will work for him (or encouraging them to dismiss paths to sobriety out of hand). I don’t really give a shit what works for a given alcoholic, the big picture here is that he get the help he needs to arrest his alcoholism.
Well, there is your problem - you don’t understand the nature of “proof”.
Which is the point of all the stuff I posted about singing the Star Spangled Banner and changing your socks. If it makes no difference whether you do something or not, then that something is having no effect, and doesn’t “work”.
If I have some medicine that I claim will affect the outcome of a disease, I then divide a group of sufferers from that disease into two groups. One group gets the medicine, the other gets a placebo.
In both groups, about 5% get better, and all the others get worse or have no change.
Do you understand that this is what we mean when we say “did the medicine work?” No, the medicine didn’t work, because it had no effect on the outcome. It didn’t cure anybody - the 5% who recover do so whether you give the medicine or not, and therefore the medicine didn’t cause it.
I can’t tell if you are deliberately obtuse, or what the reason is that this very simple notion doesn’t seem to penetrate.
AA doesn’t seem to have any effect. About 95% of alcoholics continue to drink whether they go to AA, quit on their own, go to Rational Recovery, or go thru demonic exorcisms.
Whether you go to AA or not does not seem to change your chances of getting sober.
Jesus tapdancing Christ. YES. Alcoholics Anonymous, in my humble opinion, is useless, and has no more effect on alcoholism than it does on the phases of the Moon.
I think there is a pretty good “mechanism” to explain AA’s success: social pressue within a group of accepting peers. The exact same reason why, for example, cults “work” on the lonely and dispossessed, and can get them to do stuff they otherwise would not do on their own – in this case, stay sober.
Indeed, the studies we have, limited though they are, are consistent with this theory. As stated in the other thread, the randomized study which shows AA doesn’t work is one involving court-ordered AA. Given that these people are not true volunteers, one would reasonably expect them to be less amenable to the program - if its mechanism is social pressure within a group of accepting peers.
I claim to have a magic rock that makes a coin come up heads about half the time. I toss ten pennies onto the ground. Six of them come up heads, four come up tails.
Now, I repeat the toss, only this time I give my magic rock to someone else. WILL THE SAME SIX COINS COME UP HEADS? YES OR NO? IT’S A SIMPLE QUESTION! OMG!!!
Do you understand now why your question is completely fucking retarded?
That may be the case, but it verges on the “AA won’t work until you hit bottom” where “hit bottom” is defined as “the point where you would stop drinking anyway”.
I am not aware of evidence to show that people who join AA voluntarily relapse at a lower rate than people who voluntarily quit drinking by any other method.
I could be convinced that AA could help some people come to the resolve necessary to quit drinking. In that sense, AA itself could be credited with their sobriety. However, my objection to AA is that once delivered to the “point of no return,” where sobriety is inevitable no matter what they do, AA will say that you can only get and stay sober through working the program. Which is both false and uncomfortably culty.
The studies quoted in the other thread seem to demonstrate that AA has some efficacy.
Emphasis added.
And in particular:
… which is consistent with my thesis.
Now, I don’t have the background to properly evaluate these studies, but it seems to me that there is at least some scientific support for the notion that AA “works”, in that it provides better outcomes than not using AA.
Why is it that so many people in these threads continue to view AA as treatment? It’s not treatment, and to do a “study”–or refer to one–which compares it to treatment is pointless. And yet, over and over again, people are posting meaningless “facts” and “truths” about the results of inherently misguided research.
Of course AA isn’t going work for a sample of alcoholics arbitrarily assigned to do it, and of course it’s probably going to work for those who continue to go to it voluntarily. That’s why they continue to go to it. They tend to be the kind of person who can’t stay sober alone.
You can’t define “success” in AA the same way you can determine if a treatment is successful. The purpose of AA is not to have an effect on someone despite themselves. It’s just one tool to help those who do want to stay sober. And you don’t have to “be in AA” to follow its program or use some of its techniques.
The problem is not that AA “doesn’t work”–it’s that most alcoholics don’t want to get sober. Rehabs*, cognitive based therapy, etc. have pretty low “success” rates/high rates of relapse, too. (And AA is cognitive therapy also, as much as it’s spiritual.)
*Don’t even think of believing their own “studies.”