5 ms·

No, please don't. http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/alcoholics-anonymous-not-as-helpful-as-secular-alternatives/ http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/2009/02

No, please don't. http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/alcoholics-anonymous-not-as-helpful-as-secular-alternatives/ http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/alcoholics-anonymo... There are more effective, non religious, evidence based treatments for addiction. Edited to add: Penn and Teller covered AA here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUG9dr6SZSY http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUG9dr6SZSY Also: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/75-years-alcoholics-anonymous-time-admit-problem-74268/ http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/75-years-a...

DominoTree 13y ago
I'd recommend these guys - https://rational.org/index.php?id=1 https://rational.org/index.php?id=1
- bittercynic 13y ago
  I second that. After having trouble with alcohol for over 10 years, I quit about a year ago. On my first day of not drinking I spent a long time reading rational.org, and parts of it were very useful to me. I have to say, I've been feeling better and better over the entire year. Thinking more clearly. Better perspective on life. Hanging out with people I enjoy, and not spending too much time around people I used to drink with who drag me down. In a way I could see that drinking was a problem at the time, but a year of not drinking (though also not complete sobriety ;) ) has put into perspective that it was a HUGE problem. One side note that I think others here will relate to: Even when I was inebriated, I had very strong cognitive abilities in some areas, and I used that to convince myself that I could "handle it." I couldn't tell that my medium and long-term perspective was being thrown way out of whack.
dave_sullivan 13y ago
Wow, that Penn and Teller thing is horrible. About 3:30 when they're reading from the AA book -- "I admit that I am powerless over alcohol" as Teller makes fun like it's the stupidest idea ever. A lot of the people you'll find in AA really do need to admit they're powerless over alcohol. That's no joke. But Penn and Teller readily admit they've never had a drink in their lives (it was a choice we made, a path we never decided to go down, so screw you losers that aren't total teetotalling illusionists). The comments here in general demonstrate a general lack of understanding of addiction. It's not a choice, it's a disease, and the prognosis is generally shitty. I'm not saying AA is the end all be all (it's not), but holy shit, don't be so dismissive of an organization that saves lives by trying to give people strategies they can use to avoid drinking. I'll put it this way -- if alcohol (or any recreational substance) is fucking up your life, I don't see any harm in seeking out a support group of people who have dealt with similar issues and have gone on to lead normal lives. There's a lot of suffering people out there that refuse to take that first step because they believe bullshit like it's something they can fix themselves with magic. And for all the people bitching about how AA is religious -- it's not! The "higher power" thing is more of a philosophy than a religion. This philosophy essentially says alcoholism is a disease, individuals are generally powerless to control it (as evidenced by the lack of an addicts ability to control it in the past), and they will need the help of some kind of "higher power" to avoid drinking. What's the nature of this higher power? That's for you to decide. It could simply be AA as an organization, a higher power that will help with support to prevent you from drinking. I dunno, there's a few books about it, but my point is -- it's not religious!
- randomflavor 13y ago
  Being powerless over alcohol is similar to saying your powerless over a nuclear bomb going off next to you. You have the power not to pick up the first one. Once you start it sometimes can be really hard to stop, and admitting that is the key to not starting. And for most drunks theres no point in drinking one or two drinks anyway. the point is oblivion.
- aestra 13y ago
  >And for all the people bitching about how AA is religious -- it's not! The "higher power" thing is more of a philosophy than a religion. Bull-fucking-shit. I've read the AA "big book" (enough of it that I could stand). It is a religious book. The part about non-believers is especially offensive - to me. It quotes from the Bible, it explicitly refers to the Judeo-Christian God. Many court have ruled people can't be forced to attend AA meetings because it violates the first amendment's freedom of religion clause.[1] If it wasn't religious organization, then it wouldn't. AA can actively harmful - to some people. This whole "go to AA if you have an addition as a first step for everyone" is complete and total nonsense. If people seek AA, struggle with the concept of a higher power, you know GOD, they might think they can't get better. If you are religious, seek AA, if you are not, don't. I disagree completely that AA is a universal treatment. It is not. As I said before - I know an addict, he avoids getting help because he believes that the 12 step programs are offensive. (I share the same opinion - however I acknowledge they work for some people and that's good - I just disagree they should be the "go to" programs for everyone) He knows AA doesn't work for him, but he doesn't know there are non-religious programs and people who have gotten better without religion. Preaching AA as a first step or a cure all is harmful to these people. Do I have personal experience with addition - absolutely. I was never an addict, but I grew up all my life with an addict parent. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_States_Court_rulings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_Sta... United States courts have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed a religion, it was ruled that it contained enough religious components (variously described in Griffin v. Coughlin below as, inter alia, "religion", "religious activity", "religious exercise") to make coerced attendance at AA meetings a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[88][89] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend AA.[90][91]
jholman 13y ago
My apologies for my harshness, but wow, those links were horrible. The non-video links are really the most vapid kind of argument-free partisan blogspam, filled with guilt-by-association logic, and overstating their conclusions. However, by walking the link-graph for a while from one of your links, I found this, which seems to contain some useful detail, and seems to agree with the bias of the articles you linked: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm It claims that the evidence is pretty terrible overall, but there is some evidence that AA is worse than no treatment. Hmn. I wasn't able to bring myself to read the terribly-presented websites of the suggested non-religious alternatives. Ugh. Since you claim there are "more effective, non-religious, evidence-based" alternatives, could you point to some evidence? In particular, evidence of "more-effective" and "evidence-based"? That'd be super super useful to people! And the P&T bit is almost entirely rhetorical dirty tricks. You can pick any minute of it where Penn is speaking, and find several logical fallacies and rhetorical innuendo. (The interviews vary greatly in logical clarity.) Though I agree with one thing Penn is ranting about: courts (or employers) mandating AA attendance is highly objectionable, on several levels. I'm very interested in this subject for two reasons; I'm a devout atheist, and I've seen an enormous improvement in the life of a loved one directly chronologically following that person's involvement with AA. It's just a single anecdote, and anyway perhaps there was no causation in this correlation, but it has definitely piqued my interest in whether AA can work, and how, and why, and what it has to do with religion. I've found that when one attends an AA meeting, one meets a lot of people who claim to have been profoundly improved by AA... but I realize that maybe that's just because the success stories stick around and populate meetings for 4 or 40 years. Maybe it works really well for some, but maybe the success rate is terrible. Successes notwithstanding, even if they might be rare (or common! I dunno!), I would agree there are many valid criticisms about AA. As one of P&T's interviewees points out, they resist change, and have no feedback mechanism to improve themselves. There are advantages to dogmatism, but disadvantages too. But I will say that, at least in the lefty-leaning SF Bay area, it is quite possible to be an atheist at AA. But it's still America, so if you randomly sample the population, you're gonna find a lot of professed Christians, and so an atheist at AA is going to need to have considerable tolerance of other people's (crazy wrongheaded) opinions. I would say that it's not a religion, but it is a club full of religious people, talking about things that they think are related to their religion. Maybe the SFBA is atypical. I haven't experienced chemical addition personally, and I don't know anything about the effectiveness of other programs, but if there are atheists out there avoiding AA-like programs for religious reasons and would like to talk about reconciling those things, my email is in my profile.
dagw 13y ago
As much as I love watching Penn and Teller I wouldn't take their opinion, as presented on TV, seriously on anything. They have no interest in objectivity or to seek out valid counter arguments. Their attempts to make it look like both sides get an equal chance to present their ideas are pathetic. They care nothing about educating their viewers on the nuances of what are often complex issues. All they want is to present entertaining polemics and scathing diatribes (and maybe some nudity), objectivity and consequences be damned. And I'm saying this as someone who is not only a great fan of Penn and Teller, but also someone who almost always finds myself on their side in the arguments they present.
gjvc 13y ago
what makes you an expert?
aestra 13y ago
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1852/is-alcoholics-anonymous-effective http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1852/is-alcoholi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiven... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Criticism A Cochrane Review of eight studies, published between 1967 and 2005, measuring the effectiveness of AA, found "no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA" in treating alcoholism, based on a meta-analysis of the results of eight trials involving a total of 3,417 individuals. To determine further the effectiveness of AA, the authors suggested that more studies comparing treatment outcomes with control groups were necessary. One indication AA isn't based in science - it is supposedly a panacea, a cure all for whatever ails you. There is literary HUNDREDS of different twelve step programs, one for everything! AA is also harmful because it make members say the are "you have hit rock bottom, your life is out of control, you are powerless against your addiction." This is harmful to people who may otherwise seek help for harmful drinking habits that haven't become a full blown addiction yet. It is also very degrading for some people.
- Stronico 13y ago
  Control groups are quite hard to come by...
  - aestra 13y ago
    Indeed! This makes proper research hard.

DominoTree 13y ago

I'd recommend these guys - https://rational.org/index.php?id=1 https://rational.org/index.php?id=1

bittercynic 13y ago
I second that. After having trouble with alcohol for over 10 years, I quit about a year ago. On my first day of not drinking I spent a long time reading rational.org, and parts of it were very useful to me. I have to say, I've been feeling better and better over the entire year. Thinking more clearly. Better perspective on life. Hanging out with people I enjoy, and not spending too much time around people I used to drink with who drag me down. In a way I could see that drinking was a problem at the time, but a year of not drinking (though also not complete sobriety ;) ) has put into perspective that it was a HUGE problem. One side note that I think others here will relate to: Even when I was inebriated, I had very strong cognitive abilities in some areas, and I used that to convince myself that I could "handle it." I couldn't tell that my medium and long-term perspective was being thrown way out of whack.

dave_sullivan 13y ago

Wow, that Penn and Teller thing is horrible. About 3:30 when they're reading from the AA book -- "I admit that I am powerless over alcohol" as Teller makes fun like it's the stupidest idea ever. A lot of the people you'll find in AA really do need to admit they're powerless over alcohol. That's no joke. But Penn and Teller readily admit they've never had a drink in their lives (it was a choice we made, a path we never decided to go down, so screw you losers that aren't total teetotalling illusionists). The comments here in general demonstrate a general lack of understanding of addiction. It's not a choice, it's a disease, and the prognosis is generally shitty. I'm not saying AA is the end all be all (it's not), but holy shit, don't be so dismissive of an organization that saves lives by trying to give people strategies they can use to avoid drinking. I'll put it this way -- if alcohol (or any recreational substance) is fucking up your life, I don't see any harm in seeking out a support group of people who have dealt with similar issues and have gone on to lead normal lives. There's a lot of suffering people out there that refuse to take that first step because they believe bullshit like it's something they can fix themselves with magic. And for all the people bitching about how AA is religious -- it's not! The "higher power" thing is more of a philosophy than a religion. This philosophy essentially says alcoholism is a disease, individuals are generally powerless to control it (as evidenced by the lack of an addicts ability to control it in the past), and they will need the help of some kind of "higher power" to avoid drinking. What's the nature of this higher power? That's for you to decide. It could simply be AA as an organization, a higher power that will help with support to prevent you from drinking. I dunno, there's a few books about it, but my point is -- it's not religious!

randomflavor 13y ago
Being powerless over alcohol is similar to saying your powerless over a nuclear bomb going off next to you. You have the power not to pick up the first one. Once you start it sometimes can be really hard to stop, and admitting that is the key to not starting. And for most drunks theres no point in drinking one or two drinks anyway. the point is oblivion.
aestra 13y ago
>And for all the people bitching about how AA is religious -- it's not! The "higher power" thing is more of a philosophy than a religion. Bull-fucking-shit. I've read the AA "big book" (enough of it that I could stand). It is a religious book. The part about non-believers is especially offensive - to me. It quotes from the Bible, it explicitly refers to the Judeo-Christian God. Many court have ruled people can't be forced to attend AA meetings because it violates the first amendment's freedom of religion clause.[1] If it wasn't religious organization, then it wouldn't. AA can actively harmful - to some people. This whole "go to AA if you have an addition as a first step for everyone" is complete and total nonsense. If people seek AA, struggle with the concept of a higher power, you know GOD, they might think they can't get better. If you are religious, seek AA, if you are not, don't. I disagree completely that AA is a universal treatment. It is not. As I said before - I know an addict, he avoids getting help because he believes that the 12 step programs are offensive. (I share the same opinion - however I acknowledge they work for some people and that's good - I just disagree they should be the "go to" programs for everyone) He knows AA doesn't work for him, but he doesn't know there are non-religious programs and people who have gotten better without religion. Preaching AA as a first step or a cure all is harmful to these people. Do I have personal experience with addition - absolutely. I was never an addict, but I grew up all my life with an addict parent. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_States_Court_rulings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_Sta... United States courts have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed a religion, it was ruled that it contained enough religious components (variously described in Griffin v. Coughlin below as, inter alia, "religion", "religious activity", "religious exercise") to make coerced attendance at AA meetings a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[88][89] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend AA.[90][91]

jholman 13y ago

My apologies for my harshness, but wow, those links were horrible. The non-video links are really the most vapid kind of argument-free partisan blogspam, filled with guilt-by-association logic, and overstating their conclusions. However, by walking the link-graph for a while from one of your links, I found this, which seems to contain some useful detail, and seems to agree with the bias of the articles you linked: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm It claims that the evidence is pretty terrible overall, but there is some evidence that AA is worse than no treatment. Hmn. I wasn't able to bring myself to read the terribly-presented websites of the suggested non-religious alternatives. Ugh. Since you claim there are "more effective, non-religious, evidence-based" alternatives, could you point to some evidence? In particular, evidence of "more-effective" and "evidence-based"? That'd be super super useful to people! And the P&T bit is almost entirely rhetorical dirty tricks. You can pick any minute of it where Penn is speaking, and find several logical fallacies and rhetorical innuendo. (The interviews vary greatly in logical clarity.) Though I agree with one thing Penn is ranting about: courts (or employers) mandating AA attendance is highly objectionable, on several levels. I'm very interested in this subject for two reasons; I'm a devout atheist, and I've seen an enormous improvement in the life of a loved one directly chronologically following that person's involvement with AA. It's just a single anecdote, and anyway perhaps there was no causation in this correlation, but it has definitely piqued my interest in whether AA can work, and how, and why, and what it has to do with religion. I've found that when one attends an AA meeting, one meets a lot of people who claim to have been profoundly improved by AA... but I realize that maybe that's just because the success stories stick around and populate meetings for 4 or 40 years. Maybe it works really well for some, but maybe the success rate is terrible. Successes notwithstanding, even if they might be rare (or common! I dunno!), I would agree there are many valid criticisms about AA. As one of P&T's interviewees points out, they resist change, and have no feedback mechanism to improve themselves. There are advantages to dogmatism, but disadvantages too. But I will say that, at least in the lefty-leaning SF Bay area, it is quite possible to be an atheist at AA. But it's still America, so if you randomly sample the population, you're gonna find a lot of professed Christians, and so an atheist at AA is going to need to have considerable tolerance of other people's (crazy wrongheaded) opinions. I would say that it's not a religion, but it is a club full of religious people, talking about things that they think are related to their religion. Maybe the SFBA is atypical. I haven't experienced chemical addition personally, and I don't know anything about the effectiveness of other programs, but if there are atheists out there avoiding AA-like programs for religious reasons and would like to talk about reconciling those things, my email is in my profile.

dagw 13y ago

As much as I love watching Penn and Teller I wouldn't take their opinion, as presented on TV, seriously on anything. They have no interest in objectivity or to seek out valid counter arguments. Their attempts to make it look like both sides get an equal chance to present their ideas are pathetic. They care nothing about educating their viewers on the nuances of what are often complex issues. All they want is to present entertaining polemics and scathing diatribes (and maybe some nudity), objectivity and consequences be damned. And I'm saying this as someone who is not only a great fan of Penn and Teller, but also someone who almost always finds myself on their side in the arguments they present.

gjvc 13y ago

what makes you an expert?

aestra 13y ago

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1852/is-alcoholics-anonymous-effective http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1852/is-alcoholi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiven... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Criticism A Cochrane Review of eight studies, published between 1967 and 2005, measuring the effectiveness of AA, found "no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA" in treating alcoholism, based on a meta-analysis of the results of eight trials involving a total of 3,417 individuals. To determine further the effectiveness of AA, the authors suggested that more studies comparing treatment outcomes with control groups were necessary. One indication AA isn't based in science - it is supposedly a panacea, a cure all for whatever ails you. There is literary HUNDREDS of different twelve step programs, one for everything! AA is also harmful because it make members say the are "you have hit rock bottom, your life is out of control, you are powerless against your addiction." This is harmful to people who may otherwise seek help for harmful drinking habits that haven't become a full blown addiction yet. It is also very degrading for some people.

Stronico 13y ago
Control groups are quite hard to come by...
- aestra 13y ago
  Indeed! This makes proper research hard.