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.
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.
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. “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.
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.
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.