I don't know much about AA, but whatever the case may be, I wonder if measuring effectiveness based on success rate numbers is all that meaningful. That is, doe

I don't know much about AA, but whatever the case may be, I wonder if measuring effectiveness based on success rate numbers is all that meaningful. That is, does it makes sense to view it in medical terms? While it seems to be the case that some are more prone to alcoholism than others based on genetic factors, whether one actually becomes an alcoholic is not a matter of deterministic factors like a disease might be. There is a huge component of assent. Thus, it is related to character, virtue, and habit. Temperance is, at bottom, a matter of "orderliness" (vs. disorder) of the faculties and appetites moderated and ruled over by reason and a will that conforms to the truth as known by reason. This entails restraint, moderation, self-denial, and the ability to suffer well when illicit desires surface, such as the desire for a drink when you know, rationally, that you ought not drink, that it is harmful and wrong to do so. Indeed, for all of us, to be able to suffer is essential to being a good human being; those who cannot suffer cannot live well and cannot love well. Practices of self-denial, like fasting, and self-sacrifice help cultivate this self-mastery. Sacrifice is always that of the lower for the sake of the higher. My point: perhaps success rates are to be understood also in light of personal commitment, understanding, and what makes commitment possible. Most people struggle with bad habits and addictions of all sorts and sizes. Alcoholism is just one of them and one that happens to be conspicuously destructive. Perhaps the "success rates" for the others are comparable because most people simply prefer to keep the bad habits and avoid (or lack the basic knowledge of the need for) the suffering they must endure to be made free of such things. Why assume alcoholics and alcoholism are any different than most people and most habits, mutatis mutandis?