12 step rehab

[andyandy]

this came up a while back on R and P, but it seems relevant to SMMT too.....
i was reading an article in the guardian (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1873579,00.html) about rehab - which stated that most rehab is based on the 12 step plan....which seemed incredible, seeing as the 12 point plan is


1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Is rehab in anyway scientifically based? Why is God in rehab?

and a couple of memorable quotes from the article

Nikki Sixx, bandmate of Tommy Lee and the chemically challenged bass player in Mötley Crüe, took a rather more proactive approach towards his treatment when a management intervention placed him in reluctant rehab in LA.

"One nurse kept talking to me about God until I stood up and yelled, '**** God and **** you!'" he recalls. "She told me to sit back down, so I spat in her face, jumped out the window and ran off. It's a shame the window wasn't open at the time."

Ozzy Osbourne, a man who knows pretty much all there is to know about rehab, first checked into a clinic after trying to murder his wife Sharon after an all-day vodka-drinking binge in 1989. Osbourne's numerous repeat visits since then have had a decidedly variable success rate.

"The first time I went to the Betty Ford Clinic, I asked Betty where the bar was," he said. "When she told me there wasn't one, I thought she was joking at first. Then I got angry.

"Some clinics are just Hollywood holiday camps for wealthy *********** lunatics," he added. "But they're not all like that. I went to one in Minnesota that was based on tough love, and every day they'd tell me, 'You're a piece of *********** ****!' I checked out after two days because I decided that I knew that already."

[Soapy Sam]

I think LukeT is the forum authority on this. Seems to me there was a thread about it not that long ago.

[andyandy]

Can you remember the thread title? (i've done a quick search....)

[Earthborn]

AA For Dummies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63880)

[andyandy]

lol

not too far away then :D

but seeing as this is in the SMMT, what is the science behind rehab? Why would a scientifically controlled practise use god?

[Soapy Sam]

Possibly just as a sort of control? An external (albeit hypothetical) observer. Big Brother is watching you?

Like going to the gym. You're more likely to stay at it if you have a companion, because you are embarrassed to be first to quit? If you can't find a companion, you create one in your head?

I've just had a revelation. The reason I don't need a god is because I only have to think "What will my mother say when she finds out?" to keep me on the straight and narrow. (She's on the Internet, too, so I better be careful).

[latent aaaack]

Over 90% of people believe in God and derive some benefit from it. What you seem to be arguing is that they don't benefit in some personal way from the idea of God. My guess is that the key is to invoke some power that is perceived to be greater than their addiction and to get the addicts to just acknowledge their powerlessness, to begin to get their behavior changed.

[andyandy]

Over 90% of people believe in God and derive some benefit from it. What you seem to be arguing is that they don't benefit in some personal way from the idea of God. My guess is that the key is to invoke some power that is perceived to be greater than their addiction and to get the addicts to just acknowledge their powerlessness, to begin to get their behavior changed.

hmm maybe in the US.....

in the UK less than 3% of the population regularly attend church - so you would struggle to make a case that belief in god plays a major part in a majority of people's lives.....

and yet UK rehab seems to be based on the 12 step plan too. i don't see how a plan with a base requistite for belief in god is a legitimate approach to rehab......seeing as it appears to exist as a stealth proselyting vehicle - and would alienate all those who did not share that world view. To tie up god and rehab is to suggest that without god's help, one can not overcome one's addiction...which would appear to be an irresponsible message at best....

[Dymanic]

i don't see how a plan with a base requistite for belief in god is a legitimate approach to rehab
I'm fond of a quote by C. J. Jung: "Mental health is characterized by flexibility". I once mentioned this to someone (not mentioning any names, but it's one of the contributers to this thread), and was advised never to mention Jung or Freud if I wanted to be taken seriously. I found the irony of that to be almost a thing of beauty.

At the risk of not being taken seriously, I propose that whatever else alcoholism may be, a not unreasonable approach is to view it as a problem with deeply ingrained patterns of behaviour reinforced by rigid patterns of thinking. Breaking out of a rigid pattern of thinking is hard enough when you're trying, and most people, alcoholic or not, don't seem to give it a lot of effort (but maybe that's just me being locked in to a somewhat cynical view of people in general).

It's easy to see how someone with no experience with AA might come to the conclusion that a "belief in god" is regarded as a "requisite" for recovery, especially since many who do have experience with AA also come to this conclusion -- and this right in the very face of some careful wording specifically intended to nip that in the bud. Maybe it's just lack of imagination (read: rigidity in thinking) that leads so many to immediately conclude that "a power greater than ourselves" can only mean a supernatural intelligence, or maybe it's just them responding to conditioning that (in some cultures) makes "The Christian God" the default for that sort of thing. For me, it wasn't so much a matter of "coming to believe" as it was of finally coming to be at peace with what I really do believe, rather than devoting a lot of energy trying to get myself to believe something I don't.

Is rehab in anyway scientifically based?
Sure. As a form of communal reinforcement, it exploits one of the most powerful of our basic instincts. Anyone who's been around here long enough to identify himself as a "JREF'er" should have no problem with the concept.

[Pyrrho]

The 12 steps are a method to achieve change. People get hung up on the God part and fail to address the rest of the discipline, which is designed to help the person make a clear, rational assessment of their own behaviors and to atone for the abuse they've inflicted on other people, as a means of maintaining sobriety. Of course, the first, necessary part is to stop drinking, because you won't get much rationality from a drunk...although many drunk people can be extremely rational. I mean rationality as it concerns honest self-assessment.

Replace "God" with any "power greater than yourself". It's a device to get people out of the self-focused mode of trying to apply their own self-will to the problem. The typical notion of God just happens to be convenient. The key point is to underscore the essential lack of power or control a drunk has over alcohol or whatever other addiction they're suffering from.

[Pyrrho]

The Humanist 12 steps:

http://www.lakeweb1.com/mrp/literature/agnost12.htm

[Rasmus]

I think a lot of the explaining that goes on here simply ignores the word "God" appearing 4 times in the 12 steps quoted.

Also, appealing to a "power greater than myself" would do preciously little for me, since I do not think such a power exists in any meaningful way. (i.e. I doubt that gravity will be much help ...)

If I was presented with such a program, it would only increase my problems. It would essentially tell me that I couldn't help myself, and the only proposed cure doesn't even exists.

Makes me glad I am not addicted ...

[andyandy]

It's easy to see how someone with no experience with AA might come to the conclusion that a "belief in god" is regarded as a "requisite" for recovery, especially since many who do have experience with AA also come to this conclusion -- and this right in the very face of some careful wording specifically intended to nip that in the bud. Maybe it's just lack of imagination (read: rigidity in thinking) that leads so many to immediately conclude that "a power greater than ourselves" can only mean a supernatural intelligence, or maybe it's just them responding to conditioning that (in some cultures) makes "The Christian God" the default for that sort of thing.

hmm, at its conception AA was very much christian in nature - and so it does not require a great deal of imagination to see the 12 steps in a christian context.
"The original A.A. program fashioned in Akron was described as a Christian Fellowship, held "old fashioned prayer meetings," stressed Bible study and prayer and the reading of religious literature, and aimed to bring people to an acceptance of Jesus Christ as the way to a relationship with God."
And in any case, there is an undeniable religious foundation to to the 12 step program whether we regard it as Christian or not.



Sure. As a form of communal reinforcement, it exploits one of the most powerful of our basic instincts. Anyone who's been around here long enough to identify himself as a "JREF'er" should have no problem with the concept.

I find it interesting that religion is effectively being used as a vehicle for control - and as we've all seen that throughout history it is a very powerful vehicle for the dissemination and enforcement of ideas. So I suppose a better question would be "would rehab be as successful without the use of "God"?" - Or a second question perhaps could pertain to the ethics (although this is a slippery word :) ) of exploiting such a vehicle......

especially on JREF, where many regard science and religion existing almost in mutually exclusive spheres it is an interesting example of the use of religion in the scientific realm....

[andyandy]

I think a lot of the explaining that goes on here simply ignores the word "God" appearing 4 times in the 12 steps quoted.

Also, appealing to a "power greater than myself" would do preciously little for me, since I do not think such a power exists in any meaningful way. (i.e. I doubt that gravity will be much help ...)

If I was presented with such a program, it would only increase my problems. It would essentially tell me that I couldn't help myself, and the only proposed cure doesn't even exists.

Makes me glad I am not addicted ...


that was my initial view when i saw the steps - "God" wouldn't help an agnostic get too far in his recovery - and personally I'd find the intergral part of "God" in the 12 steps to be an issue......

as quoted before.....

Nikki Sixx, bandmate of Tommy Lee and the chemically challenged bass player in Mötley Crüe, took a rather more proactive approach towards his treatment when a management intervention placed him in reluctant rehab in LA.

"One nurse kept talking to me about God until I stood up and yelled, '**** God and **** you!'" he recalls. "She told me to sit back down, so I spat in her face, jumped out the window and ran off. It's a shame the window wasn't open at the time."

the 12 step plan seems to let down those who don't see their addiction in a religious context.....

[Abdul Alhazred]

See also this:

http://www.agnosticaanyc.org/12steps.html

(Somewhat different from the version Pyrrho linked)

[Dymanic]

at its conception AA was very much christian in nature
Who cares? What we now call the United States was arguably similar in nature at its earliest roots; but as an entity, in its modern form it is explicitly NOT about religion -- and this is not changed by the fact that some of its citizens are still struggling to grasp this. It's worth noting that the limited success of the early groups was exactly what lead to the careful wording I mentioned above; "God" got changed to "GodAsWeUnderstoodHim", and there was a reason, and not everybody notices the difference, but those of us for whom the difference is important DO notice.

And in any case, there is an undeniable religious foundation to to the 12 step program whether we regard it as Christian or not.
I do deny that though. I see the foundation as having to do with the way a substance abuse problem tends to funnel a person's thinking and behavior into narrow and predictable channels, and with the understanding that comes with being in the presence of others who have been successful at recognizing and overcoming these patterns in their own thinking and behavior. The steps and everything else is just the sauce on that meat.

So I suppose a better question would be "would rehab be as successful without the use of "God"?"
Well, I don't believe in God, and if long-term sobriety is the test, I am successful (so there's a sample of one). But the way I would answer your question is: yes, perhaps, for some -- but I'd consider the prognosis guarded at best for anyone unwilling to develop more tolerance for ideas he doesn't find easily acceptable. I never did manage to get myself to believe in God, but I gave it my best shot, and I think I got some benefit out of just being willing to do that; it was good practice for learning how to listen to some other things I also didn't want to hear, but which I DO regard as valid.

[Rasmus]

Who cares? What we now call the United States was arguably similar in nature at its earliest roots; but as an entity, in its modern form it is explicitly NOT about religion -- and this is not changed by the fact that some of its citizens are still struggling to grasp this. It's worth noting that the limited success of the early groups was exactly what lead to the careful wording I mentioned above; "God" got changed to "GodAsWeUnderstoodHim", and there was a reason, and not everybody notices the difference, but those of us for whom the difference is important DO notice.

Please elaborate on how any god as we may understand him (him?) is not a god. Thanks.

Well, I don't believe in God, and if long-term sobriety is the test, I am successful (so there's a sample of one). But the way I would answer your question is: yes, perhaps, for some -- but I'd consider the prognosis guarded at best for anyone unwilling to develop more tolerance for ideas he doesn't find easily acceptable. I never did manage to get myself to believe in God, but I gave it my best shot, and I think I got some benefit out of just being willing to do that; it was good practice for learning how to listen to some other things I also didn't want to hear, but which I DO regard as valid.

Did you try to believe in God in the setting of a twelve steps program that you claim isn't religious, or was that an independent experience?

If it worked for you: Great!

But I, too, would sooner jump through a closed window (or a concrete wall, indeed) before I tried to kill my last remaining brain cells by forcing myself to believe in such utter nonsense as a god.

So putting me into such a program would seem very counter productive. Much more so if I have the impression that the true nature of the program is being denied or obfuscated.

[Dr. Imago]

Also, appealing to a "power greater than myself" would do preciously little for me, since I do not think such a power exists in any meaningful way. (i.e. I doubt that gravity will be much help ...)

Apparently you've never been falling-down drunk. ;)

-Dr. Imago

[Dymanic]

Please elaborate on how any god as we may understand him (him?) is not a god.
You seem to be hung on the word "God". A lot of people are. If you look at it as a shorthand way of referring to "a power greater than a SELF", you may have some hope of understanding my personal point of view on this. That understanding may or may not be of value to you, but since you asked, I'll risk rebuke by offering a peek.

The way I look at it is this: about a week ago, I got a pneumovax booster. Right now inside my body, a phenomenally complex process is taking place by which lymphocytes are responding to the antigens in that shot, just as they have responded to every pathogen to which I was ever exposed. They've been protecting me all my life, whether I knew it or not, requiring no consious effort on my part. Similarly complex processes are also working on digesting the sandwich I ate a while ago, and distributing nutrients to cells, and I don't have to think about that either. It might be argued that I did play a critical role by deciding to eat the sandwich, but whose idea was it that I'd feel hungry? When cells need nutrients, they send messages through long-established pathways initiating chains of microevents which culminate with the notion emerging in my brain that maybe a peanut butter and honey sandwich would be a good idea. I think my addiction, my insanity, began with questioning those processes; with placing my "self" above those, trying to find ways to improve on the most sophisticated piece of equipment several billion years of evolution ever came up with. I didn't like certain ways of feeling, and thought I had the system beat with some heavy-handed chemical tweaks. Surrender for me simply means no more cheating; feel it, deal with it. If I do that, the "power greater than myself" will restore me to sanity (even if getting there drives me a little crazy). A line from an old Beatles tune expresses it well for me:

When you've seen beyond your self
You may find
Peace of mind
Is waiting there

Then you'll see you're really only very small
And life goes on within you
And without you



Did you try to believe in God in the setting of a twelve steps program that you claim isn't religious, or was that an independent experience?
Both, at various times. I tried to believe in God in the setting of a twelve step program that appeared to me religious because I (like many in the program) hadn't yet managed to penetrate to (what I now regard as) the essence. If you're all about God, AA will be all about God for you -- but then, if you're all about God, a trip to the grocery store will be all about God for you. In my opinion, those who go to AA hoping only to find recovery and find that "God" somehow got smuggled onboard may find that the package "He" was hidden in was the one they themselves carried in.

But I, too, would sooner jump through a closed window (or a concrete wall, indeed) before I tried to kill my last remaining brain cells by forcing myself to believe in such utter nonsense as a god.
I don't know about closed windows or concrete walls, but when I first went to AA, it was as an alternative to suicide, and my method of choice was to be hanging. I had the rope picked out, and the rafter I would tie it to, and the box I would stand on. If you've never been to a place like that, you may not yet know what you will or won't be willing to do.

I've found that since I've become truly comfortable being an atheist, I'm not nearly as concerned as I once was with what other people do or don't believe.

[0oTITANo0]

This God issue is splitting hairs. You can't go to AA and expect to be taken seriously without finding Jesus. This "spiritual higher power" line is an open ended hook to get you coming into meetings. The whole organization is rooted in religion and is completly unscientific. Being an addict and quitting does not make you an expert counselor to other addicts and that is the fundamental idea of 12 step. Support is one thing but 12 Step is very rigid and proscriptive about treatment. AA is not scientific, there is not much evidence that they have a high success rate. AA does not study itself and it does not try to improve its system of assistance by self evaluation. Other than hiting you with a bible and telling you that the 12 steps are the only way to go there are no accommodations or alternatives for people who are not succeeding in the program. Furthermore most of the tenets of AA have been shown scientifically to inhibit recovery. People who believe that they have control over themselves and the decisions they make are more likely to stop using. Hope and optimism are the predictors of success in reducing use or quitting drugs. The disease model that tells people they are fatally flawed with a disease does not provide that hope for the future. My drug addiction expert of choice is Stanton Peele.

www.peele.net

[Abdul Alhazred]

This God issue is splitting hairs. You can't go to AA and expect to be taken seriously without finding Jesus.

Absolutely untrue.

The meetings I attend have lots of God talk, but I haven't heard Jesus mentioned very often.

Quite a few Jews, Hindus, and New Age woowoos who want to get sober. As well as atheists, etc.

Most people are believers to begin with, even drunks.

[Rasmus]

You seem to be hung on the word "God".

Yes. Words mean things.

Anyone that uses "God" in their reasoning and then proceeds to claim that their are not religious is at best behaving very suspiciously. What's the point of not admitting that there is a religious foundation?

A lot of people are. If you look at it as a shorthand way of referring to "a power greater than a SELF", you may have some hope of understanding my personal point of view on this.

That is not what the word "God" means.

I am not debating that this is an approach that worked for you - why would I? But I doubt that this is a very reasonable interpretation of the intended meaning of the 12 steps. Why say "God" if that's not what you mean?

That understanding may or may not be of value to you, but since you asked, I'll risk rebuke by offering a peek.

Again, great if it did and does work for you. But it doesn't do anything to support that the AA itself is not inherently religious. just because individual members manage to ignore that.

The way I look at it is this: about a week ago, I got a pneumovax booster. Right now inside my body, a phenomenally complex process is taking place by which lymphocytes are responding to the antigens in that shot, just as they have responded to every pathogen to which I was ever exposed. They've been protecting me all my life, whether I knew it or not, requiring no consious effort on my part. Similarly complex processes are also working on digesting the sandwich I ate a while ago, and distributing nutrients to cells, and I don't have to think about that either. It might be argued that I did play a critical role by deciding to eat the sandwich, but whose idea was it that I'd feel hungry? When cells need nutrients, they send messages through long-established pathways initiating chains of microevents which culminate with the notion emerging in my brain that maybe a peanut butter and honey sandwich would be a good idea. I think my addiction, my insanity, began with questioning those processes; with placing my "self" above those, trying to find ways to improve on the most sophisticated piece of equipment several billion years of evolution ever came up with. I didn't like certain ways of feeling, and thought I had the system beat with some heavy-handed chemical tweaks. Surrender for me simply means no more cheating; feel it, deal with it. If I do that, the "power greater than myself" will restore me to sanity (even if getting there drives me a little crazy). A line from an old Beatles tune expresses it well for me:

When you've seen beyond your self
You may find
Peace of mind
Is waiting there

Then you'll see you're really only very small
And life goes on within you
And without you


That's very nice. But "God" would be a pretty bad choice of words to describe any part of the above.

Both, at various times. I tried to believe in God in the setting of a twelve step program that appeared to me religious because I (like many in the program) hadn't yet managed to penetrate to (what I now regard as) the essence.

I have little problem to believe that there is something underlying the 12 steps that is of more importance to some. But that doesn't make the religious connotations go away.

To me, the obvious answer would be: "Yes, AA is religious at the core. One does not necessarily need to be religious to participate or for it to work."

Then we could argue if it helps if you're religious. That would be very interesting. But it is not what is happening. Instead I hear: "Yes, we say "God" all the time, but we don't really mean that the way any other speaker of the language would use and understand the word, and regardless, it just doesn't mean that there are religious aspects to the AA."

We're not Greeks! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1291434&postcount=404)

If you're all about God, AA will be all about God for you -- but then, if you're all about God, a trip to the grocery store will be all about God for you.

Yes. But I am not all about good. A trip to the grocery is all about frozen pizza and beer and chocolate. So this still doesn't explain God away from the AA.

In my opinion, those who go to AA hoping only to find recovery and find that "God" somehow got smuggled onboard may find that the package "He" was hidden in was the one they themselves carried in.

I didn't need to smuggle anything. Re-read their twelve steps and you will find that God was already there from the beginning, waiting patiently for me to ever learn that the AA existed.

I've found that since I've become truly comfortable being an atheist, I'm not nearly as concerned as I once was with what other people do or don't believe.

No, apparently you are not concerned at all, else you would have probably noticed that the AA seems very religious, and that it takes more than saying "we are not" to make that impression go away.

[Soapy Sam]

Point of information for crossponders:- In Britain, The "AA" is the Automobile Association. Alcoholics Anonymous usually gets the full title.

Carry on.

[Pipirr]

what is the science behind rehab? Why would a scientifically controlled practise use god?

Because the use of God had been shown to be effective in said scientifically controlled practice.

And there´s a million dollars for AA if they can show that.

[Abdul Alhazred]

AA makes no supernatural claims.

[Rasmus]

Point of information for crossponders:- In Britain, The "AA" is the Automobile Association. Alcoholics Anonymous usually gets the full title.

Carry on.

Does that tell us anything? ;)

[The Don]

AA makes no supernatural claims.
Well they do claim to be the UK's number 1 breakdown service

I personally find this almost impossible to believe

[Dymanic]

You can't go to AA and expect to be taken seriously without finding Jesus.
I won't say that that's absolutely untrue; I'm sure it's quite true in some places. But expecting to be taken seriously is something newcomers are generally encouraged to relinquish anyway; in particular, taking one's SELF too seriously can be a real obstacle to progress. Whatever else, recovering alcoholics are pretty good at helping each other with that.

Being an addict and quitting does not make you an expert counselor to other addicts and that is the fundamental idea of 12 step.
I'd say the fundamental idea is that other addicts may be able to help in ways the expert counselor cannot.

Support is one thing but 12 Step is very rigid and proscriptive about treatment.
Where I'm seeing rigidity is in your view of 12 step programs. AA is comprised of individuals. Some do indeed take a very inflexible view of recovery, attempting to adhere rigidly to the "letter of the law", pouring over the big book word-by-word, and interpreting every word in the most literal sense. "Big Book literalists" you might call them. Naturally, they also attempt to impose on others the same expectations they place on themselves, and they tend to be among the most vocal members at meetings. Many who have been around a while view this as simply part of a process, and appropriate to certain stages of recovery for some people. My main point here is that the program can be as rigid or as flexible as the individual chooses to make it.

AA is not scientific, there is not much evidence that they have a high success rate.
Agreed. By comparison with other methods, AA probably does not stand out as being particularly effective. Particularly COST-effective, maybe.

AA does not study itself and it does not try to improve its system of assistance by self evaluation.
This observation can only have been made by someone with very little actual familarity with AA. Groups continually evaluate themselves by what is referred to as the "group conscience", and members constantly discuss the relative quality of various groups, meetings, etc. The value of AA as a program is also among the most frequently discussed issues both at group level and in casual discussion -- and if you think recovering alcoholics always agree on things, I can again only conclude that this is because you have no first-hand experience in this.

Furthermore most of the tenets of AA have been shown scientifically to inhibit recovery
I suggest that you take a closer look at the phrase "shown scientifically". If you'd like some help with that, present some of this evidence, and we can examine it together.

Hope and optimism are the predictors of success in reducing use or quitting drugs. The disease model that tells people they are fatally flawed with a disease does not provide that hope for the future.
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength, and HOPE with each other, that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism".

-- Part of the preamble read at the beginning of every AA meeting.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Well they do claim to be the UK's number 1 breakdown service

I personally find this almost impossible to believe

I don't know if that's true or not.

At any rate, it's not a supernatural claim. So no $1,000,000.



As for the "Jesus" question, see this by Luke T, who unlike me has spent a lot of time in the "Bible Belt".

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1931985&postcount=29

[Dymanic]

That's very nice. But "God" would be a pretty bad choice of words to describe any part of the above.
I couldn't agree more. If you have any suggestions for alternatives using less than about fifteen syllables, I'd love to hear them.

I have little problem to believe that there is something underlying the 12 steps that is of more importance to some. But that doesn't make the religious connotations go away.
Whether you see those connotations as going away or not really doesn't make a ratsass to me. I'll continue to go to AA when I feel like it, taking what I can use and leaving the rest. I'll get to laugh, and sometimes cry, and drink free coffee, and hug cute girls, and every once in a while get a little insight into the strange tricks my brain likes to play on itself. If I find another gig where I can get a deal like that for a dollar, I'll be sure to check that out too.

[0oTITANo0]

I suggest that you take a closer look at the phrase "shown scientifically". If you'd like some help with that, present some of this evidence, and we can examine it together.


"Furthermore, there were indications in Vaillant's data that those attending AA were more likely to relapse than were those who abstained on their own, apparently because those in AA needed to keep up AA attendance in order to sustain their remission."
Peele (http://www.peele.net/lib/abuse.html)

Vaillant, G.E. (1983). The natural history of alcoholism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.

[0oTITANo0]

"The two randomized studies in which AA treatment was assigned found AA to yield worse outcomes than other forms of treatment -- or no treatment at all.

(See Brandsma et al., The Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism: A Review and Comparative Study, Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980;
Ditman et al., "A controlled study on the use of court probation for drunk arrests," American Journal of Psychiatry, 124:160-163, 1967.)

But Walsh et al. ("A randomized trial of treatment options for alcohol-abusing workers", The New England Journal of Medicine, 325:775-782, 1991) allowed alcoholics limited choices, and those who chose AA still did worst (about as bad as those assigned to AA).
AA's role in society -- more negative than positive?"

link (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)

[Pipirr]

AA makes no supernatural claims.

Well, do they make any scientific claims?

Taking a look at the AA website, I found a list of what AA does not do.

A.A. does not:


1. Furnish initial motivation for alcoholics to recover

2. Solicit members

3. Engage in or sponsor research

4. Keep attendance records or case histories

5. Join “councils” of social agencies

6. Follow up or try to control its members

7. Make medical or psychological diagnoses or prognoses

8. Provide drying-out or nursing services, hospitalization, drugs, or any medical or psychiatric treatment

9. Offer religious services

10. Engage in education about alcohol

11. Provide housing, food, clothing, jobs, money, or any other welfare or social services

12. Provide domestic or vocational counseling

13. Accept any money for its services, or any contributions from non-A.A. sources

14. Provide letters of reference to parole boards, lawyers, court officials, social agencies, employers, etc.


The question of whether God is essential to the success of the 12 step program could be answered with research. AA doesn´t do any. But if they did, and God was found to be essential to the program, that would be a heck of a thing. Evidence for the supernatural, even.

Clearly something about AA works for some people. In the absence of research, who knows what that something is, or how many people are helped? Seems to me that God is in the 12 steps because that´s the way its always been, not because it is in any way proven.

[Rasmus]

The question of whether God is essential to the success of the 12 step program could be answered with research.

Right. Just go ahead. I suggest you first establish that God is part of the 12 step program to begin with. (That the 12 steps reference God doesn't mean he's there...)

AA doesn´t do any. But if they did, and God was found to be essential to the program, that would be a heck of a thing. Evidence for the supernatural, even.

Yes, proving that God is part of anything would indeed prove the supernatural. My guess is that God is no more part of the AA than he is of the Catholic Church: None.

Clearly something about AA works for some people. In the absence of research, who knows what that something is, or how many people are helped?

In the absence of research, it's not even clear that there is something that works in the AA. I bet a lot of people go to the AA meetings by Car or Bike or Bus ... is there anything in those modes of transportation that works to overcome addiction?

Rasmus.

[0oTITANo0]

Clearly something about AA works for some people.

Not really. Remember, that some people are motivated to recover and will regardless of whether or not they are involved in AA. AA membership appears to be coincidental to recovery. The rate of recovery is as good as or worse than that of a person deciding to recover on their own. So being is AA is as good as or worse than seeking no treatment.

[Rasmus]

I couldn't agree more. If you have any suggestions for alternatives using less than about fifteen syllables, I'd love to hear them.

So you think the AA goes for the term "God" just because saying what they actually want to say wouldn't be catchy enough?

How dumb is that?

Whether you see those connotations as going away or not really doesn't make a ratsass to me. I'll continue to go to AA when I feel like it, taking what I can use and leaving the rest.

I do not recall suggesting that you shouldn't be going, much less that you shouldn't be going because AA is religious.

I said that they appear to be religious, and I said that I would suppose that that might be a bad thing for some atheists seeking that kind of help.

You are mainly going on about how you do not invoke God yourself. Again: Good for you, but not at all what I am talking about.

[Pipirr]

0oTITANo0:
I agree, there is a paucity of evidence pro AA. Succesful recovery through AA can be entirely coincidental, as an individual may recover anyway, whatever program or process that they try.

I doubt that a higher power had much involvement in their recovery, and I strongly dislike the philosophy that the individual in question was not able, in their own power, to overcome alcoholism. Albeit with the help of a support group.

I also think it outrageous that such a widely used program has, as a matter of policy, no scientific self-assessment of its own efficacy.

Take God out of AA, I'm sure it works just as well. Which doesn't seem to be very well at all.

[0oTITANo0]

"Yet evidence gathered by psychologist Martin Seligman and others indicates that "learned helplessness" - or believing one cannot influence one's destiny - is a major factor in depression. The opposite state of mind occurs when people believe they control what happens to them. Called self-efficacy, it is a major contributor to psychological well-being and successful functioning."[/URL] [URL="http://www.peele.net/lib/genes.html"]link (http://www.peele.net/lib/genes.html)

This is the fundamental problem with AA. That it teaches people with an alcohol problem they are doomed to die of a fatal disease which they are powerless to escape. This is why people who drop out of AA are more likely to relapse and fail to take control of their lives. It also describes why AA members tend to relapse more than people who quit on their own.

[0oTITANo0]

0oTITANo0:
I also think it outrageous that such a widely used program has, as a matter of policy, no scientific self-assessment of its own efficacy.

Take God out of AA, I'm sure it works just as well. Which doesn't seem to be very well at all.

Yup. Even worse, this religious, ineffective program is mandated in conviction sentencing by state and federal courts for criminal activity that involved drugs or alcohol.

[Luke T.]

If I was presented with such a program, it would only increase my problems. It would essentially tell me that I couldn't help myself, and the only proposed cure doesn't even exists.

Makes me glad I am not addicted ...

You have hit the nail on the head. "I couldn't help myself."

Exactly.

Be very glad you are not addicted.

[Luke T.]

This God issue is splitting hairs. You can't go to AA and expect to be taken seriously without finding Jesus.

I don't know where you got this idea from, but it is way off.

The disease model that tells people they are fatally flawed with a disease does not provide that hope for the future.

Any active alcohlic who makes an honest assessment of his life can only come to one scientific conclusion: They are fatally flawed. And there's plenty of evidence that alcoholism kills.

If an alcoholic continues to drink, then they certainly don't have much of a hopeful future.

However, if an alcoholic sobers up, then there is a great deal of hope for their future.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?

If you inform someone that they are allergic to strawberries, are you telling them they are fatally flawed with a disease and taking away their hope for a future? Or are you telling them they really need to have a strawberry-less future if they want to be happy?

[Luke T.]

As for AA being scientifically based, I would have to say it isn't. That doesn't mean there aren't some scientific principles at work. Dymanic did an awesome job of explaining it in his first post in this topic, and subsequent posts. Better than I can do.

As for God, yeah, God is mentioned throughout the literature in AA, sometimes far beyond the comfort level of some people. Because of that, some people can't see the principles that would work with or without a God, but I believe they are there.

The ugly truth is that alcoholism is vicious. It kills. And it destroys the lives of anyone who lives in close proximity to the alcoholic. Such a vicious thing requires a wide range of tools to conquer. For some people, AA works. For some, it doesn't. For some people, psychiatry works. For some, it doesn't.

I've tried all the tools.

The thing is that alcoholism not only destroys the mind, it destroys the spirit. It makes a person do things that would have horrified them in their early days to know they would one day do.

By the time a person realizes they have a problem, if they are lucky enough to realize it to begin with, their entire psyche is a wreck. So quitting drinking is only the beginning. One has to take the monster one has become and make that monster into a decent human being again.

No easy task.

A pill isn't going to do that for you. And unfortunately, that is just about all that the field of psychiatry has to offer people with such problems if they are not wealthy.

Here's a pill. Good luck.

Perhaps all AA has going for it is that it is free. And it offers a plan for gaining back your self-respect and a way to do some good for others.

When one has committed some gross horror, or a series of gross horrors, it is a tremendous comfort to find other people who have done the same things. "If no one else had ever done it, there wouldn't be a name for it." You have no idea what a ray of hope that offers to someone in the position an alcoholic finds himself.

So it isn't just about being "an expert counselor to other addicts".

To actually hear people laughing over the atrocities in their lives is something many outsiders will never get, but it means a lot to those in recovery.

As for the relapse rate, I don't think any method, scientific or not, has much to brag about. A percentage point advantage doesn't mean much when they are all in the single digits.

That speaks more to the terribleness of alcoholism than to the efficacy of the methods.

The fact is that recovering from the depths of alcoholism requires a great deal of hard work on the part of the individual. And no matter what some of you may think, that is stressed repeatedly in AA. "It works if YOU work it." Sure, they say God will do for you what you couldn't do for yourself. That does not mean you don't have to do ANYTHING. You have to bust your ass. What AA offers is a plan. A direction. Some suggestions of what to do instead of spinning your wheels and trying the same old crap you tried on your own.

Unfortunately, a lot of people neglect the hard parts. They think just going to meetings is enough. It isn't. It isn't nearly enough.

[Dymanic]

"Furthermore, there were indications in Vaillant's data that those attending AA were more likely to relapse than were those who abstained on their own, apparently because those in AA needed to keep up AA attendance in order to sustain their remission."
Peele (http://www.peele.net/lib/abuse.html)

Vaillant, G.E. (1983). The natural history of alcoholism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Following the reference, (http://www.peele.net/lib/vaillant.html) I find:

The book is based on a 40-year study of about 600 men from two research populations -- an upper middle class college group and an inner city group. In addition, Dr. Vaillant reports on the results of treatment over eight years of 100 men and women at a Cambridge, Mass. clinic of which he is the codirector.
As well as:
Vaillant systematically created summaries that disputed his own data, while citing cases selectively to try to support what he perceived to be the safe positions to take.Without reading Vallant's book, it's hard to place much confidence in the representative nature of his samples, so I'm not quite sure what to think about that; but I would hesitate to use it to support any claims about what has or has not "been shown scientifically".

On a quick read of the Peele article, I think I can agree with most of the points he makes. I just don't think I can agree with the way you are attempting to apply his conclusions toward supporting yours. Allow me to match your mined quote with a few of my own, and add some comments.

Therapy for addiction only rarely and very inexactly accomplishes these things, in part because addiction treatment is preoccupied with the nature of the substance involvement rather than with the person's relationship to self, others, and the world. In this form, addiction treatment shares with most therapy an overemphasis on the experience of therapy itself rather than on the person's life structure.I wonder if Peele is referring here to clinical therapy, and if by "life structure" he means stability in housing, employment, etc. This is old news to anyone who's been around AA for any length of time. It's not at all unusual to see new members embrace the program with such enthusiasm that it eclipses all other areas of their lives. Such substituting of a chemical addiction with an addiction to "therapy" is certainly a dead-end (IMO), with ultimate success depending on the person developing the ability to move on.

The best hope for eliminating addiction is to enhance each individual's personal and situational resources; the single best means yet discovered for accomplishing this is for a person to grow up.One of the things AA members are most often admonished to do (and those admonitions are often so gentle as to be virtually transparent; sometimes what someone says doesn't really sink in until later, when you're lying there about to go to sleep). But members returning after relapse often report that improved situations (more money, etc) appeared to be contributing factors to their relapse. As Peele notes, it's not a perfect science.

What we need most, however, is not more drug and alcohol therapy, but better therapy: i.e., that which is directed at the fiber of the person's life.Again we have "fiber of a person's life". If that includes healing family and interpersonal relationships, Peele should regard AA as a decent guide, because it's one of the most frequently mentioned aspects of recovery in AA, as well as the subject of several chapters in the big book.

I will end by indicating what I think such therapy should not do. It should not convince people that they are lifelong addicts who can never enter the ranks of normal people; it should not tell them that any exposure to psychoactive substances holds out the distinct possibility they will relapse; it should not undermine their self-reliance by indicating that it is only the therapy which enables them to stay healthy; it should not retard the process, already under attack in our world, through which people assume responsibility for their actions and their impact on others; and, lastly, it should not forcibly lay claim to infallibility and to more knowledge about a person's drug problems and how to cure them than the person himself or herself has.I will firmly maintain that AA does NOT do any of these things. The literature is saturated with it: "Our book is meant to be suggestive only." "We realize we know only a little." "Our troubles, we think, are basically of our own making."

I have to admit that I got a little bored trying to slog through the orange paper. If I get time to dig in, I'll be back. On a quick glance, it at least appears that efforts have been made to define success and failure in some reasonable way (a challenge I've given some thought to, and come away mostly shaking my head). For now, I'll just observe that the "effectiveness" of a 12-step program might be measured in a lot of different ways, but my personal observation is that recovery is possible for those who want it badly enough, and I am in agreement with Dr. Milton A. Maxwell that this may not depend greatly on the nature of the treatment or the context of beliefs.

[Luke T.]

Doctors can be selective and choose their patients so their report cards look good. Treatment centers can also be selective. There are hospitals which refuse to treat alcoholics and addicts because of the hopelessness of success. And they all cost money, which is a powerful incentive for succeeding.

Compare that to AA which takes everyone who walks through the door. That includes the guy who lives under a bridge who has no desire to quit drinking and is really there for the coffee and cake. It includes the guy who is being forced to attend by a judge, and who also does not have a desire to quit drinking.

Comparing the success rate of AA to other methods in those circumstances doesn't sound very scientific to me.

[Rasmus]

You have hit the nail on the head. "I couldn't help myself."

Exactly.

You missed my point. By a mile.

There are plenty of things where I cannot help myself. That does absolutely NOT suggest that help could only come from a power greater than me.

[Luke T.]

You missed my point. By a mile.

There are plenty of things where I cannot help myself. That does absolutely NOT suggest that help could only come from a power greater than me.

Take any problem that you can't solve yourself. Building a house, for example. Is not a construction company a power greater than yourself when it comes to building that house?

Aren't psychiatrists a power greater than their patients? Does not a psychiatric patient turn his will and his life over to that greater power?

Does not a cancer patient turn their will and their life over to an endocrinologist? Hey, this guy knows better than me what I need to do to save my ass.

Same principle. I walked into AA after trying to figure out for myself how to quit drinking and failing miserably on my own. I walked into AA after who knows how many shrinks tried and failed to help me. From 1981 until I walked into AA in 1993, I was under the care of one kind of shrink or another more often than not. And a good chunk of my childhood was spent in shrinks' offices.

None of them did me any good whatsoever.

Even after I relapsed in 1995 and had my last drink, I still had two more psychiatric hospitalizations and maximum dosages of antidepressents ahead of me in 1996, with a little over a year of sobriety under my belt.

Before AA, I just got worse and worse and worse. Sicker and sicker. After AA, I got better and better.

Doesn't take much for me to figure it out. AA was not my first resort. It was my absolutely last resort. The last house on the block.

[Dr. Imago]

Does not a cancer patient turn their will and their life over to an endocrinologist?



Not if they want to live (i.e., I think you meant oncologist, unless these same patients have some sort of endocrinologic cancer, in which case they'd probably want a surgeon anyway).



-Dr. Imago

[Luke T.]

Not if they want to live (i.e., I think you meant oncologist, unless these same patients have some sort of endocrinologic cancer, in which case they'd probably want a surgeon anyway).



-Dr. Imago

:D

Yeah. I was thinking of endocrinologist because that's who I've been seeing for this lump in my neck.

[Rasmus]

Take any problem that you can't solve yourself. Building a house, for example. Is not a construction company a power greater than yourself when it comes to building that house?

No.

Aren't psychiatrists a power greater than their patients? Does not a psychiatric patient turn his will and his life over to that greater power?


No, and - ideally - no.


Does not a cancer patient turn their will and their life over to an endocrinologist? Hey, this guy knows better than me what I need to do to save my ass.

Yes, he knows better. Doesn't make him a higher power.

Same principle.

Really?

No doctor EVER thought that I should adress him as "God" simply because he had a degree and "God" would sound flashier than whatever it said on his certificate.

I walked into AA after trying to figure out for myself how to quit drinking and failing miserably on my own. I walked into AA after who knows how many shrinks tried and failed to help me. From 1981 until I walked into AA in 1993, I was under the care of one kind of shrink or another more often than not. And a good chunk of my childhood was spent in shrinks' offices.

None of them did me any good whatsoever.

Ah, so no higher poower there, either, I guess?


Even after I relapsed in 1995 and had my last drink, I still had two more psychiatric hospitalizations and maximum dosages of antidepressents ahead of me in 1996, with a little over a year of sobriety under my belt.

Before AA, I just got worse and worse and worse. Sicker and sicker. After AA, I got better and better.

Good for you. Really.

Doesn't mean they are not religious and doesn't make them a higher power. It doesn't even mean that they are particualiry good at what they do.

Doesn't take much for me to figure it out. AA was not my first resort. It was my absolutely last resort. The last house on the block.

So?

[Luke T.]

No.



No, and - ideally - no.




Yes, he knows better. Doesn't make him a higher power.

We will have to agree to disagree, then, I guess.

Really?

No doctor EVER thought that I should adress him as "God" simply because he had a degree and "God" would sound flashier than whatever it said on his certificate.

I've heard some brain surgeons think they are God. :)

Ah, so no higher poower there, either, I guess?

Not one that worked for me. But they do work for others.

Good for you. Really.

Doesn't mean they are not religious and doesn't make them a higher power. It doesn't even mean that they are particualiry good at what they do.

So?

So I stick with what works for me. I have more peace of mind in one day now than I had in the three decades prior to AA.

ETA: And I don't know if you know this about me, but I am a Deist. So on one hand that means I believe there is a God, which means I am not offended by the idea of God as Higher Power. But on the other hand, it also means I do not believe in a God who actively intervenes in our lives. Which means that God isn't what is keeping me sober. My higher power is more related to the collective wisdom of the people in, and principles of, AA.

With AA, I stay sober. Without AA, I could not put a week of sobriety together. So Luke T. alone, no good. Luke T. + AA, I stay sober. I did not have the power to stay sober without AA. Therefore AA is a power greater than me, because it keeps me sober.

Simple, really.

[Steven Howard]

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I don't think I'd ever seen this before. The whole thing's much different than I would have thought. Are these really the official twelve steps? Why are they in the past tense? And in the first person plural?

I'm genuinely surprised that none of the steps really says anything about not drinking, which I (perhaps naively) thought was the point of the whole exercise.

People say it's helped them, and I won't discount that, but to my (again, completely naive and uninformed) way of thinking, much of it seems more like religious doctrine than any sort of behavior modification.

Step 1. This is just giving the game away from the outset, isn't it? If you honestly believe that you're powerless over alcohol, then there's nothing you can do about it. If you are able to stop drinking, doesn't that mean that you weren't powerless after all?

Step 2. Okay, I guess the phrase "restore us to sanity" here means "render us no longer powerless," but this step is pretty explicitly a statement of religious faith. I can sort of see how, with some Humpty-Dumptyism on the definition of "higher power", an atheist might be able to get past this step. I don't think I could.

Step 3. This is another statement of religious faith. I honestly don't see how an atheist could complete this step.

Step 4. If this is supposed to help you stop drinking, then it seems to strongly imply that alcoholism is a result of some moral flaw. Again, this sounds a statement of religious faith and not, I think, in line with current scientific thinking on the nature of addiction.

Step 5. This is ritual confession, another religious doctrine.

Step 6. Again, this is just religious doctrine, and another insurmountable hurdle for atheists or anyone else whose worldview doesn't include a god that can modify people's behavior.

Step 7. This is just Step 6, restated into a divine game of "Mother, May I".

Step 8. Because feeling bad about themselves never makes anybody want to drink, go ahead and make a detailed list of all the bad things you've ever done to anybody.

Step 9. The disclaimer in this one is very weird. I guess we can take "injure" in a very broad sense to include "bothering people who'd rather never see me again" or "violating a restraining order." Even so, this might sound like a good idea on paper, but it's almost guaranteed to lead to more hurt feelings on all sides.

Step 10. This is just Step 4 again, isn't it?

Step 11. This is still more religious doctrine.

Step 12. Proselytizing and evangelism. I'm now completely convinced that AA is a religion.

[Rasmus]

Thanks, this makes it even more obvious than what I had gathered from my looking at it.

Allow me to add that it's just plain not possible to argue that "God" here means the power of others, or some higher power or any such thing, since #11 explains how that higher power has a will all of it's own.

[Dr. Imago]

Well, if "God" is truly the key variable in the success of AA...

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine how the type and timing of help received over 8 years by previously untreated problem drinking individuals were linked to drinking and functioning outcomes. METHOD: At the time of the 8-year follow-up, individuals (N= 466, 51% male) had self-selected into four groups: no treatment (n = 78), Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) only (n = 66), formal treatment only (n = 74), or formal treatment plus AA (n = 248). RESULTS: Individuals who received some type of help--AA, formal treatment or both--were more likely to be abstinent at 8 years than were untreated individuals. Although the AA only group was better off than the formal treatment only group at 1 and 3 years, the informally and formally treated groups were equivalent on drinking outcomes at 8 years. Similarly, despite the formal treatment plus AA group having been better off at 1 and 3 years than the formal treatment only group, the two formal treatment groups were comparable on drinking at 8 years. Both helped and untreated individuals improved between baseline and 1 year on drinking outcomes, but only formally treated individuals showed continued improvement over 8 years on drinking indices. Participation in AA or formal treatment during Year 1 of follow-up was associated with better drinking outcomes at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who obtain help for a drinking problem, especially relatively quickly, do somewhat better on drinking outcomes over 8 years than those who do not receive help, but there is little difference between types of help on long-term drinking outcomes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10928723&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

A sample of 515 initially untreated problem drinkers was followed for one year after contacting alcohol information and referral or detoxification services. At a one-year follow-up, participants had self-selected into one of four groups: no treatment (24%), Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) only (18%), outpatient treatment (25%), and residential or inpatient treatment (32%); some outpatients also attended AA, and some inpatients also attended AA and/or outpatient programs. These four groups were compared on changes in drinking-related variables, other aspects of functioning, and stressors and resources over the follow-up year. Also examined were associations between amount of treatment and outcomes at one year. All four groups improved on drinking and functioning outcomes but changed less on stressors and resources. Although individuals who received no help improved, persons in the two treatment and the AA-only groups improved more, particularly on drinking-related outcomes. Inpatients were more likely than outpatients or AA-only participants to be abstinent; otherwise, type of intervention had few differential effects. More AA attendance was associated with abstinence among AA-only, outpatient, and inpatient group members. Among outpatients and inpatients, more formal treatment was associated with abstinence and improvement on other drinking-related outcomes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=10133776

... he apparently isn't "all powerful" (or there'd be a 100% remission rate, right).

From the data, it appears the group+individual psychotherapy model (part of which is what AA provides) appears to be superior. Also, you probably have a better chance if you go to an inpatient program. I don't think anywhere does the data suggest you have to admit that "God" will help you with your problem. But, the supportive environment (group psychotherapy) model is probably the effective part of the treatment. What is clear from the studies is that you are much more likely to fail if you try on your own.

-Dr. Imago

[Luke T.]

I don't think I'd ever seen this before. The whole thing's much different than I would have thought. Are these really the official twelve steps?

Yes.

Why are they in the past tense? And in the first person plural?

They are in the past tense because they come from an excerpt in the Big Book describing how the first members of AA found sobriety.

They were originally written in the first person singular. But because it is believed you can't get sober alone, they changed it to "we".

I'm genuinely surprised that none of the steps really says anything about not drinking, which I (perhaps naively) thought was the point of the whole exercise.

No. As I mentioned earlier, an alcoholic has far more than just a drinking problem. An alcoholic's life is a wreck, and it requires changing not just the drinking, but many bad behaviors and thought patterns as well.

People say it's helped them, and I won't discount that, but to my (again, completely naive and uninformed) way of thinking, much of it seems more like religious doctrine than any sort of behavior modification.

It is all about thought modification by way of behavior modification. You can't think your way into a new way of behavior, but you can change your behavior which will lead to a change in thinking.

Step 1. This is just giving the game away from the outset, isn't it? If you honestly believe that you're powerless over alcohol, then there's nothing you can do about it. If you are able to stop drinking, doesn't that mean that you weren't powerless after all?

It means you were powerless on your own. And that our lives were unmanageable. So again it is more than just quitting drinking. It is also making our lives manageable.

Step 2. Okay, I guess the phrase "restore us to sanity" here means "render us no longer powerless," but this step is pretty explicitly a statement of religious faith. I can sort of see how, with some Humpty-Dumptyism on the definition of "higher power", an atheist might be able to get past this step. I don't think I could.

Okay.

Step 3. This is another statement of religious faith. I honestly don't see how an atheist could complete this step.

Since atheists are in AA, then they apparently do find a way to complete this step. I had a sponsor who said for him that "GOD" was Group Of Drunks.

Step 4. If this is supposed to help you stop drinking, then it seems to strongly imply that alcoholism is a result of some moral flaw. Again, this sounds a statement of religious faith and not, I think, in line with current scientific thinking on the nature of addiction.

Nope. Wrong. Alcoholism is not seen as a moral flaw. It is a weakness, and is stated as such on the first page of Step One in the 12 and 12.
The principle of Step 4 is that you are as sick as your secrets. Many of us have done things in the past we regret. And I don't just mean alcoholics. But for an alcoholic, those prior acts can have a serious effect on self-esteem. And secrets have a negative power to them.
But even more importantly, this step helps identify those behavior patterns which are so self-destructive and cause us to do bad acts. It helps identify those things that we do that cause us harm, and what is often overlooked; to identify those things that are good things we need to strengthen.

Step 5. This is ritual confession, another religious doctrine.

Does not a psych patient "confess" things to his doctor? And doesn't this have a good purpose to it? For me, this step took away the power my secrets had over me. It was an amazing effect. My life was dominated with guilt and with fear over these secrets. Once I talked about them with someone else, and heard similar confessions from other people, I felt astronomically better. It was like a logjam was cut loose. It is hard to describe was a freeing experience this is.

Step 6. Again, this is just religious doctrine, and another insurmountable hurdle for atheists or anyone else whose worldview doesn't include a god that can modify people's behavior.

If you are really stuck in a resentment about God, then you will definitely fail to see the purpose of this step. They call this one the step that separates the men from the boys.

But this is what is all about: We all have bad habits we really don't want to let go of. Chronic masturbation, pathological lying, gambling, frequenting hookers, screwing the neighborhood dog, you name it. And I've heard all of those, and worse, from members of AA. Gee, they have nothing to do with drinking right?

Wrong. They are all a threat to sobriety and to our sanity. Each carries unhealthy consequences. "Instincts gone awry." Normal drives that have gotten out of control and are pegged to the limit.

These need to be "let go". And anyone who has a bad habit will tell you just how hard it is to let go of a bad habit. It ain't easy. And the first step to letting go of any bad habit is having the desire to let go of it. Usually we have to be driven to the point where the habit stings us. Backlash. But by then it is so ingrained it is even harder to let go of than it would have been if we had stopped it when it first began. But that is human nature. We don't quit until we go blind.

So step six is about finding the desire to let go of those character defects which we found in steps four and five which are bad that we need to get rid of. Behaviors that need to be modified.

Step 7. This is just Step 6, restated into a divine game of "Mother, May I".

This is the act of actually letting go of that bad habit.

Step 8. Because feeling bad about themselves never makes anybody want to drink, go ahead and make a detailed list of all the bad things you've ever done to anybody.

This statement is arrogance arising from ignorance and is almost not worth responding to.

Ask any kid who had an alcoholic dad if they ever suffered any harm as a result of their dad's drinking. Ask the wife or husband of an alcoholic.

There is a lot of wreckage in the trail of an alcoholic. A lot of wounded. And those people deserve amends.

And a person will never be able to live with themselves if they don't make amends for the horrors they have committed. Trying to forget what we did is futile and carries a danger of deluding ourselves that we did no wrong. And believing we did no wrong means we will have no motive to improve and change our behaviors.

We learn from our past. The mistakes we made. We can't allow ourselves to forget the consequences of our bad behaviors.

Step 9. The disclaimer in this one is very weird. I guess we can take "injure" in a very broad sense to include "bothering people who'd rather never see me again" or "violating a restraining order." Even so, this might sound like a good idea on paper, but it's almost guaranteed to lead to more hurt feelings on all sides.

Arrogance again.

I've done Step Nine with a lot of people. And in every case it lead to healing on all sides. In ways I would never have imagined. For example, my first wife, who I cheated on, and who hated my guts, and who wanted me nowhere near our son, now gets along with me famously. We are better friends than we have ever been.

Another example, I thought I would hate my stepmother for the rest of my life. Forget about loving her, I didn't even consider I could ever like her. Not even as I traveled down the road of the 12 steps did I consider doing a Ninth Step with her. The way I saw it, she owed me the amends.

But here we are, and I love her with all my heart. Probably the biggest miracle of the whole process.

Like it says in the Big Book about Step Nine, "We will be amazed before we are half way through".

One guy I met in AA had fled overseas to escape prosecution for some crime he had committed. One day, he showed up at a meeting in Virginia Beach. He said he came back to the States and was turning himself in to the authorities, but wanted to catch a meeting before doing so. He said he was turning himself in as part of his Ninth Step.

I happened to be in the middle of the worst suicidal period of my life at that moment, and I was stunned.

Two years later, I'm in the same meeting, and there's this guy again! He said he had just gotten out of prison and this was his first meeting after being released.

So now he didn't have to do any more running or hiding. He paid his debt.

Awesome.

ETA: As for the "injure them or others" part, that has to do with our motives for making amends. Are we doing it just to feel better without thinking of the impact it will have on that person? For instance, if your wife never knew you cheated on her, how devasting would it be to her to confess that to her just so you can ease your own conscience?

This is something I had to give a lot of thought to, and get some wise counsel about, in my own case of infidelity.


Step 10. This is just Step 4 again, isn't it?

It is a "maintenance step". Instead of burying or covering up our mistakes, or trying to deny them, we admit them as soon as we realize we were in the wrong. Or take the case of a deliberate lie. If you lie, you might get away with it with everyone else, but you will know you are a liar. Not a good behavior pattern to live with. I became so good at lying, that I could lie to myself.


Step 11. This is still more religious doctrine.

No. It is meditation on the formula that works. By this point, you know what works for you to give you peace of mind, and what doesn't. It is easy to get complacent. An alcoholic has to be vigilant against complacency. Old bad habits have a way of sneaking back up on you when you get complacent.

Step 12. Proselytizing and evangelism. I'm now completely convinced that AA is a religion.

Then this site is a religious site as it, and the people on it, also proselytize and evangelize.

[Luke T.]

Well, if "God" is truly the key variable in the success of AA...



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10928723&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=10133776

... he apparently isn't "all powerful" (or there'd be a 100% remission rate, right).

I don't know if there would be a 100% remission rate if God intervened. He may have reasons for being selective. :)

But I cringe when people talk about God intervening in their lives. Because sooner or later, there is a letdown. A time when he doesn't intervene. What then? Have fun justifying why he didn't.

It takes quite a bit of ego to think you can figure out God's will, in my opinion. And I used to suffer from that kind of ego.

The only part of God's will I am sure of is that Luke T. is not supposed to drink.

You can see "God's will" in that statement as a fatal flaw and therefore believe the whole thing is flawed. However, it is a hard truth I am not supposed to drink, God's will or not.

I usually add to the end of that statement, "and to stay as close to him as possible." That is a verbal shortcut. What I mean by it is that I need to stick as close to the straight and narrow path that keeps my mind at peace and my behaviors right as is humanly possible. There are certain virtues I have learned that work very well for me in keeping me happy, and keep me from being tempted back into old bad habits.


From the data, it appears the group+individual psychotherapy model (part of which is what AA provides) appears to be superior. Also, you probably have a better chance if you go to an inpatient program. I don't think anywhere does the data suggest you have to admit that "God" will help you with your problem. But, the supportive environment (group psychotherapy) model is probably the effective part of the treatment. What is clear from the studies is that you are much more likely to fail if you try on your own.

-Dr. Imago

This goes back to what I said in post #42. These results speak more to the terrible power of addiction than to the efficacy of treatment methods.

And it would be nice if everyone could afford or receive inpatient treatment, but that isn't reality. The reality is that very few people can. And not even many people can get outpatient treatment that extends beyond a prescription for pills.

A pill does no good without therapy. Zip. It does not teach new behaviors which then leads to new thinking. There is no re-inforcement going on.

So as long as there are these shortcomings, AA will be around, strong as ever.

[Cuddles]

Surely AA uses the same tactics as other groups like Weight Watchers? I haven't seen the studies, but I believe there have been several done that show people acting as a group are more likely to lose weight and, importantly, keep it lost. I think similar things have been found with smoking. I don't know about the god issue, but it seems sensible that quitting in a group of like-minded, supportive people is more likely to work than quitting on your own.

[Dymanic]

I'm genuinely surprised that none of the steps really says anything about not drinking, which I (perhaps naively) thought was the point of the whole exercise.
Untold thousands before you have had the same initial reaction. For the non-alcoholic, the choice of whether to drink or not really is a simple one, and such a person can hardly be expected to appreciate how much different this is for the alcoholic. The alcoholic himself will often fail (or refuse) to recognize that he is different from others in this regard until after he has reached the point where he first becomes motivated to quit (or, more often, control) his drinking and finds himself unable to do so. Approaching recovery as a trivial matter of behavior modification is something many newcomers to AA will therefore have tried without success many times before coming to the program.

"Here are some of the methods we have tried: Drinking beer only, limiting the number of drinks, never drinking alone, never drinking in the morning, drinking only at home, never having it in the house, never drinking during business hours, drinking only at parties, switching from scotch to brandy, drinking only natural wines, agreeing to resign if ever drunk on the job, taking a trip, not taking a trip, swearing off forever (with and without a solemn oath), taking more physical exercise, reading inspirational books, going to health farms and sanitariums, accepting voluntary commitment to asylums -- we could increase the list ad infinitum."

I like to say that long before drugs and alcohol became a problem for me, they were a solution. When I was tired, or nervous, or bored, or whatever, I had a quick easy way to fix that. Better living through chemistry. It worked so well and so consistently for so long that I had little need to develop other ways of coping. Then, after more than twenty years, an interesting thing happened: it quit working. This left me with essentially no natural defenses; no resources with which to address the challenges I faced, both big and small; virtually none of the coping skills which my unafflicted peers had developed long ago. To view my problem as a simple matter of behavior modification at that point is about as naive and uninformed as it would be to toss a fish up on the riverbank and expect him to instantly make the switch to breathing air. What I needed was a full re-write; a major shift in my core values; a complete change in my whole attitude and outlook upon life. That's what the steps are about.

[ponderingturtle]

Not really. Remember, that some people are motivated to recover and will regardless of whether or not they are involved in AA. AA membership appears to be coincidental to recovery. The rate of recovery is as good as or worse than that of a person deciding to recover on their own. So being is AA is as good as or worse than seeking no treatment.

This is an important point. I could say that Reflexology clearly works for some people because there are people who are strong believers in it. So is AA like woo medicine?

[ponderingturtle]

You have hit the nail on the head. "I couldn't help myself."

Exactly.

Be very glad you are not addicted.

I am glad I don't have cancer, it does not make me believe people who are certain that their naturopath cured their cancer.

[ponderingturtle]

Any active alcohlic who makes an honest assessment of his life can only come to one scientific conclusion: They are fatally flawed. And there's plenty of evidence that alcoholism kills.

And if they don't come to that conclusion then they are not alcoholics?

[Luke T.]

This is an important point. I could say that Reflexology clearly works for some people because there are people who are strong believers in it. So is AA like woo medicine?

What you found to be an important point is incorrect. The statements "The rate of recovery is as good as or worse than that of a person deciding to recover on their own" is false. And so is the conclusion, "So being is AA is as good as or worse than seeking no treatment."

Funny you accepted that without asking for evidence, and in the face of evidence which contradicts it which has been posted in this topic.

I admit my bias. How about you?

[Luke T.]

And if they don't come to that conclusion then they are not alcoholics?

What part of "active alcoholic" did you not understand?

[ponderingturtle]

Take any problem that you can't solve yourself. Building a house, for example. Is not a construction company a power greater than yourself when it comes to building that house?

Aren't psychiatrists a power greater than their patients? Does not a psychiatric patient turn his will and his life over to that greater power?
.

So for the purpose of AA my car is a higher power because I can not move at 60mph by myself?

That does not seem to fit with any common useage of higher power and is a cop out to not reform their language.

[Luke T.]

Alcoholic: A person who drinks alcoholic substances habitually and to excess or who suffers from alcoholism.

http://www.answers.com/alcoholic&r=67

Flawed by definition.

[Luke T.]

I am glad I don't have cancer, it does not make me believe people who are certain that their naturopath cured their cancer.

But you would believe them when they tell you they couldn't cure their cancer on their own, wouldn't you?

[ponderingturtle]

What you found to be an important point is incorrect. The statements "The rate of recovery is as good as or worse than that of a person deciding to recover on their own" is false. And so is the conclusion, "So being is AA is as good as or worse than seeking no treatment."

And looking at what dr Imago posted above it does not appear to be a clearly effective treatement. It is made more complex by it having related issues with versions of group therapy and such.

So if I showed that the percentage of people with back pain improved with chiropractic treatments over non treatment groups, then demanded that you accept that subluxations are the cause of all disease, would you be a bit confused by how I got from A to C by way of god B?

Funny you accepted that without asking for evidence, and in the face of evidence which contradicts it which has been posted in this topic.

I admit my bias. How about you?

Show that the god part is what helps people.

[ponderingturtle]

What part of "active alcoholic" did you not understand?

The part that said it ever had a clear definition. Is a controled binge drinker an alcoholic or not?

Also there are alot of very broad statements about alcoholics and how all of them hurt their family. SO clearly hurting your family is a requirement to be an alcoholic, how else are you going to get the 100% correlation that is claimed.

But then again alcoholic is used to describe people who don't fit that pattern either.

[ponderingturtle]

Alcoholic: A person who drinks alcoholic substances habitually and to excess or who suffers from alcoholism.

http://www.answers.com/alcoholic&r=67

Flawed by definition.

So anyone who commonly drinks to excess must by defintion be hurting their family.

Personaly that looks more like a circular definiton to me

[Luke T.]

So for the purpose of AA my car is a higher power because I can not move at 60mph by myself?

That does not seem to fit with any common useage of higher power and is a cop out to not reform their language.

It only seems that way because all you are familiar with is the few words contained in the 12 steps and not the full AA text.

From the text:

If the man be agnostic or atheist, make it emphatic that he does not have to agree with your conception of God. He can choose any conception he likes, provided it makes sense to him. The main thing is that he be willing to believe in a Power greater than himself and that he live by spiritual principles.

[Luke T.]

The part that said it ever had a clear definition. Is a controled binge drinker an alcoholic or not?

Controlled binge seems to be self-contradictory, doesn't it?

I have known people who drank more than I did who I do not consider to be alcoholics. But it is not my job to diagnose someone as alcoholic or non-alcoholic.

To me, it isn't so much about the quantity or even the frequency one drinks. It is more about the control one has over it once one starts and what effect it has.

Also there are alot of very broad statements about alcoholics and how all of them hurt their family. SO clearly hurting your family is a requirement to be an alcoholic, how else are you going to get the 100% correlation that is claimed.

100% correlation that is claimed? Where did you get that?

What I said was, "Ask any kid who had an alcoholic dad if they ever suffered any harm as a result of their dad's drinking. Ask the wife or husband of an alcoholic."

Ask employers and friends of alcoholics. Ask the places of businesses robbed by alcoholics.

Hell, ask any cop about the destructiveness of alcoholics.

Then decide for yourself if there aren't "persons we had harmed".

But then again alcoholic is used to describe people who don't fit that pattern either.

I knew an old lady in AA who did not begin drinking alcoholically until she was a widow in old age. She probably didn't hurt anyone but herself with her drinking. So her list of amends was probably pretty short. :)

[Dymanic]

Maybe we should pause to ask:

Does there exist ANY robust, scientific definition for "alcoholism"?

Can "effective" be defined crisply enough to permit meaningful comparisons between various approaches to treatment for alcoholism?

Provided that these two questions can be answered satisfactorily, can the question posed in the OP be broadened to: "Does ANY scientifically-based approach to recovery from alcoholism exist, and if so, does any exist which can be shown to be effective?

[ponderingturtle]

But you would believe them when they tell you they couldn't cure their cancer on their own, wouldn't you?

How is that relevent? Cancer is not characterized primarily by behavior. You what to look more at things like schizoaffect disorder and other mental illnesses that are primarily diagnosed and expressed through behavior.

A hammer is not a higher power, even if I need one to pound nails.

[Steven Howard]

Since atheists are in AA, then they apparently do find a way to complete this step. I had a sponsor who said for him that "GOD" was Group Of Drunks.

Well, that's glory for you.

Let's see how well that substitution works with the original text.

Step 3 becomes: "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of a Group Of Drunks as we understood [Them]."

Step 5: "Admitted to a Group Of Drunks, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs."

Step 6: "Were entirely ready to have a Group Of Drunks remove all these defects of character."

Step 7: "Humbly asked [a Group Of Drunks] to remove our shortcomings."

Step 11: "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with a Group Of Drunks as we understood [Them], praying only for knowledge of [Their] will for us and the power to carry that out."

Hmm.

[trvlr2]

I don't know where you got this idea from, but it is way off.



Any active alcohlic who makes an honest assessment of his life can only come to one scientific conclusion: They are fatally flawed. And there's plenty of evidence that alcoholism kills.

If an alcoholic continues to drink, then they certainly don't have much of a hopeful future.

However, if an alcoholic sobers up, then there is a great deal of hope for their future.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?

If you inform someone that they are allergic to strawberries, are you telling them they are fatally flawed with a disease and taking away their hope for a future? Or are you telling them they really need to have a strawberry-less future if they want to be happy?


Bolding mine.

Luke, you have summed it very nicely, I think. Well said.

[Luke T.]

Well, that's glory for you.

Let's see how well that substitution works with the original text.

Step 3 becomes: "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of a Group Of Drunks as we understood [Them]."

Step 5: "Admitted to a Group Of Drunks, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs."

Step 6: "Were entirely ready to have a Group Of Drunks remove all these defects of character."

Step 7: "Humbly asked [a Group Of Drunks] to remove our shortcomings."

Step 11: "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with a Group Of Drunks as we understood [Them], praying only for knowledge of [Their] will for us and the power to carry that out."

Hmm.

Makes sense to me. :D

Some views from atheists in AA:
http://www.recoveryresources.org/atheist.html

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_is_aa_for_you.cfm?PageID=16&SubPage=86

[Luke T.]

Here are 9 atheist/agnostic AA meetings in Chicago (http://www.chicagoaa.org/meetings/#codes).

[Rasmus]

Here are 9 atheist/agnostic AA meetings in Chicago (http://www.chicagoaa.org/meetings/#codes).

That some atheists go to church doesn't mean the church suddenly stops being a religious institution.

[asthmatic camel]

That some atheists go to church doesn't mean the church suddenly stops being a religious institution.

Rasmus, it really doesn't matter. AA works for many people; who cares what they're brainwashed with if it helps them from losing their families, homes, jobs and keeps them from sleeping on the streets?

[Rasmus]

Rasmus, it really doesn't matter.

It would matter to me if I was looking for help overcoming an addiction; and others here have expressed the same sentiment.

AA works for many people; who cares what they're brainwashed with if it helps them from losing their families, homes, jobs and keeps them from sleeping on the streets?

How many times exactly do I have to explicitly say that it is a good thing for those people that to does work for? And then how many times do I need to explain that I am not expecting anyone to drop our, or for the AA to change or any such thing?

[Luke T.]

That some atheists go to church doesn't mean the church suddenly stops being a religious institution.

If a person doesn't like it, they are free to leave. But it seems to me there is more to your beef than it being, in your words, "a religious institution."

At my statement that AA worked for me and keeps me sober, your response was "So?", as if that was no big deal. But from my POV, it is literally the difference between me being alive today and me being dead years ago. And that is a big deal.

And that is the way it is for a lot of people.

To sneer at the low success rate and ignore the low success rate of all treatment methods suggests a position of superiority where there is none.

So the critics can have their fun. And the only reason I am able to hear those criticisms is because of AA. So there is some irony for you.

I am here because of AA. Maybe that's what pisses some people off toward AA. :D :D :D

[Luke T.]

And looking at what dr Imago posted above it does not appear to be a clearly effective treatement. It is made more complex by it having related issues with versions of group therapy and such.

So if I showed that the percentage of people with back pain improved with chiropractic treatments over non treatment groups, then demanded that you accept that subluxations are the cause of all disease, would you be a bit confused by how I got from A to C by way of god B?

I am unable to follow your thinking. You seem to be trying to build a strawman and put words in my mouth that I am not saying.

You accepted an unsupported statement that people who try to get sober in AA fare as good or worse than people who go it on their own. I suggest you accepted that without evidence and suddenly that translates to an "all" statement about cures? So yeah, I am definitely confused how you go from Point A to a loaf of bread.

Show that the god part is what helps people.

I have said I do not believe God intervenes to help people get sober. Is there a way I can restate that for you to help you understand it better?

[Luke T.]

How is that relevent? Cancer is not characterized primarily by behavior. You what to look more at things like schizoaffect disorder and other mental illnesses that are primarily diagnosed and expressed through behavior.

So would you believe someone if they told you they had been unable to cure their schizo affect disorder on their own?

A hammer is not a higher power, even if I need one to pound nails.

A hammer can be your higher power in AA. Some people use a doorknob, others use a lightbulb.

I am not kidding.

They don't assign supernatural power to these objects. Just want to be clear about that. It's not like they are Thor with a hammer. :D

[Rasmus]

At my statement that AA worked for me and keeps me sober, your response was "So?", as if that was no big deal.

Yes. It no big deal as long as the question is whether the AA is religious.

But from my POV, it is literally the difference between me being alive today and me being dead years ago. And that is a big deal.

And that is the way it is for a lot of people.

Again: So?

To sneer at the low success rate and ignore the low success rate of all treatment methods suggests a position of superiority where there is none.

Feel free to point out where I did sneer at the success rate of the AA, or even commented on it.

[Luke T.]

I'll give you a real world example that someone once gave me of what their Higher Power was for a while.

He pointed at a red floor tile in the AA meeting room and said in the beginning, that was his higher power.

I know, it sounds silly, but he was laughing right along with me as he told me about it.

I asked him to explain.

He said that the red floor tile made it to every meeting. He didn't make it to every meeting.

Since his HP was a tangible object, he could go and visit it. And that meant he made it to a meeting as a result.

Pretty goofy. But it worked for him. It got him to meetings where he could gain some sanity, or at the very least, stay away from a drink for one hour on a Saturday night. And there is a lot of power in that.

Simple.

[Luke T.]

Yes. It no big deal as long as the question is whether the AA is religious.

I don't care if the only way for me to stay sober and to get peace of mind is to juggle frogs for one hour a day and chant nonsense rhymes. If it works, I'll do it. Because the alternative was that bad.

And I'll make those frogs my higher power.

ETA: The question was "Is rehab in anyway scientifically based? Why is God in rehab?"

EATA: And Dymanic asked: Provided that these two questions can be answered satisfactorily, can the question posed in the OP be broadened to: "Does ANY scientifically-based approach to recovery from alcoholism exist, and if so, does any exist which can be shown to be effective?

[Luke T.]

I guess the simple answer for why God is in AA is because that concept worked for a lot of people where other methods had failed.

A niche market, if you will.

AA started out small. The Big Book was written in 1939, IIRC, when AA had only about 100 members. Since then, it has grown to millions worldwide. So it apparently still has a lot of appeal to many people. My guess is that the draw factor of a Higher Power is greater than the repulsion factor that may be felt, as evidenced by AA's growth.

Can it be improved by taking out God? I have no way of knowing. But I do think the spiritual (not religious) part of AA is key to its efficacy. It may be key to any treatment program that hopes to have any chance of success.

[Luke T.]

Feel free to point out where I did sneer at the success rate of the AA, or even commented on it.

Sorry. I had you and pondering turtle mixed up in my head. Apologies. Your posts have not had such a tone nor have you commented on the success rate of AA.

[Luke T.]

"A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse."

Dictionary definition of a psychopath. Dictionary definition of Luke T. as a drunk.

I'd rather be a chanting frog juggler.

[Luke T.]

"Why are there frogs in rehab?"

[trvlr2]

If all you want is a demonstration of higher power, try moving something very heavy alone-then try the same with some help. Even a Group Of Drunks.....
I do see alcoholism as a kind of illness, like Luke said before, an allergy. Certainly, I have noticed that some people have a much worse reaction to alcohol than others.
And, maybe the failure rate has something to do with the business of not having hit your personally acknowledged 'rock bottom'?

[Dr. Imago]

Why didn't you just use the Force, Luke? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Seriously, I'm glad you got over your addiction, however you accomplished it.

A lot of good points raised here as well. I think the "God" got in AA because more people than not believe in the God-concept, and 'turning over' your power to "Him" - on whatever level - helps to absolve one personally of the responsibility - again, on whatever level - that they had in getting themselves in trouble in the first place. These self-recriminations that alcoholics go through can be a vicious spiral of worsening self-esteem in furthering the perception of inability to control the addiction. Putting this responsibility away from the individual, in no small way, absolves this. The God-concept works conveniently in that regard.

Then, the group therapy, on the other hand, creates and fosters a group-think and group-responsibility mentality, and the WeightWatcher's analogy is excellent (i.e., group accountability is, in no small part, why it has the best long-term success rate of all formal weight loss programs). Once you are responsible, in a concrete way, to something outside yourself, it becomes a powerful motivator... for some. As I see it, this works in two (maybe more) main ways. First, the group depends on you to be there for their support; the participant would be letting the group down if they didn't show up. Secondly, there is a egoistic (which, I believe, also helps explain in a perhaps overly simplified, biochemical basis [reward-punishment behavior level] why a lot of alcoholics get into trouble in the first place) self-interest in being there - "what will people think of me if I don't show up?" Still, a successful group needs as much glue as it can get to hold it together. The God-concept may further help to cement the relationship between participants at a "higher" level.

But, the pivotal point is this: AA is voluntary. You don't have to be there if you don't want to. Bonding that occurs, the motivation that occurs, is often the result of the end-of-the-end of the disease process (i.e., when people have finally had enough). In that sense, such groups self-select for success, and this may also be a key factor in the reason why it works so well. People that go are really, really ready to finally quit (even though some still ineluctably fail). But, they have the confidence that the group will still accept them back, and hold them accountable. See how it all plays back on itself?

So, in summary, my belief as to why AA is so successful has more to do with its...

(1) Mechanism for removal of self-blame
(2) Group responsibility
(3) Self-selection

... than it does anything specifically with God. I recognize, though, that most people believe in a higher power and that this "God-concept" may provide a greater glue to hold the group together as well as provide more intrinsic motivation for the alcoholic to come to the meetings.

I'm not a psychologist, though. I'm also not an alcoholic/addict (recovering or otherwise) either. So, sorry if I botched any jargon or previously well-established concepts.

-Dr. Imago

[asthmatic camel]

It would matter to me if I was looking for help overcoming an addiction; and others here have expressed the same sentiment.



How many times exactly do I have to explicitly say that it is a good thing for those people that to does work for? And then how many times do I need to explain that I am not expecting anyone to drop our, or for the AA to change or any such thing?

Fair comment. I hadn't read your posts carefully enough. My apologies.