RATIONAL RECOVERY....what is this jibberish?????

enaekleon

heard someone mention Rational Recovery and so i googled it.
i couldnt believe my eyes.

i mean if you think AA is whacky this stuff is just totally off the wall.

does anyone else feel the same?

just wondering,
cheers,
e.

Tom Thorne

Hi,
I've looked at the site and to be honest see some merit in their thinking. But am I right in thinking they are looking for money in some way.

But each to their own whatever works for anyone then fair play.

zero_nine

I would have more faith in rational recovery than I would in AA. I like the way it urges you to take responsibility for your actions and instead of attributing your actions to a disease process. People drink because its wile craic, and some people will get themselves into trouble over it...if you're one of those people you should do the responsible thing and stop drinking, or you can continue to drink and have the craic but be willing to face the probable consequences. If you cut out all the recovery, alcoholism bs that's what quitting boils down to--and for many people that enough for people to quit completely- e.g. I have two uncles (brothers), both problem drinkers, for one of my uncles the going got to tough for him and he quit and same for the other, except he's still at AA and is a major player in that circle, and I think the latter is unnecessary and unhelpful since the latter is still stigmatised for being an alco and still has that monkey on his back.

Its obviously unwise continue to have the craic on the beer despite making an educated guess that you will run into trouble. I don't think that you need any help to quit, I think you can rely on your own resources. Rational recovery is basically a record of the resources that the founder drew upon to quit, and its helpful to some people--and these people pay him money for the info.

bank

Hi Zero Nine

That was a very good post. You are very open minded and honest. I believe we have a very serious drink and drug problem in Ireland which I believe is escalated by the fact we have incredibly acceptable behaviour when it comes to drunkeness. I think a sensible approach to any type of treatment is to have respect for it.

I am personally not a fan of AA because I have tried it and it didn't suit my personality and my understanding of why I drink alcohol. At the moment we haven't many alternatives open to the person who is in trouble and need immediate help. AA is and has been a life saver for many people so no one has the right to knock it.

I have also looked a Ratonal Recovery very closely, enabling me to completely understand their thinking and I am seriously a fan. I have not paid over any money and I don't have to. They have what they call an advanced course that does cost money and I understand people who purchase this course have some belief in Rational Recovery but aren't totally getting the full gest. Some people will never get the reasoning behind Rational Recovery because on some level they do not want to or are not ready to stop drinking/drugging for ever.

At the end of the day we have to make our own informed choices and do what works for and suits ourselves.

Richie860504

I do think it has it's merits in saying about taking responsibility for your actions when drinking.
I'm fairly sick and tired of reading in the papers every week that someone has used the defence that they have a drinking problem and are now addressing it by attending AA. That's rubbish.

1) When the person got arrested because of their actions while drinking, this was more than likely not a one off incident, it's just the first time they have been caught.

2) From AA meetings that I did attend, I knew some people that actually told me they were only attending to avoid a prison sentence.
Solicitors know how to work the system and this is one way they do it.

This is one issue that I think the AA falls down big time on, labelling it as a disease. I don't think it's a disease, I'd agree it's an addiction that you can fall into very easily if your using drink as a crutch for some personal issue, but definitely would not call it a disease.

iguana

My husband is a recovering alcoholic and he really likes the rational recovery way of thinking. He feels it's the first philosophy he's come across that actually describes how he feels about drinking. He does go to AA meetings, he rejects their philosophy but he does find the company of other recovering alcoholics helpful.

I have to say that as the partner of an alcoholic I find the RR philosophy and it's programme for partners a hundred, thousand million times more helpful and sensible than anything I've ever heard in al-anon.

I'm not sure exactly what part of RR that the OP thinks is so wacky and off the wall? Especially in comparison to an organisation that thinks alcoholism is a disease and that some people are biologically incapable of consuming alcohol for genetic reasons, but that this biological disease can be beaten if the inflicted offers their will up to a non existent, mythical being. And that the loved ones of the inflicted are also struck with a sister disease that can also only be cured by offering their will up to the same being.

enaekleon

iguana wrote: »

My husband is a recovering alcoholic and he really likes the rational recovery way of thinking. He feels it's the first philosophy he's come across that actually describes how he feels about drinking. He does go to AA meetings, he rejects their philosophy but he does find the company of other recovering alcoholics helpful.

I have to say that as the partner of an alcoholic I find the RR philosophy and it's programme for partners a hundred, thousand million times more helpful and sensible than anything I've ever heard in al-anon.

I'm not sure exactly what part of RR that the OP thinks is so wacky and off the wall? Especially in comparison to an organisation that thinks alcoholism is a disease and that some people are biologically incapable of consuming alcohol for genetic reasons, but that this biological disease can be beaten if the inflicted offers their will up to a non existent, mythical being. And that the loved ones of the inflicted are also struck with a sister disease that can also only be cured by offering their will up to the same being.

'that some people are biologically incapable of consuming alcohol for genetic reasons'..........never quite saw that in their literature. can you reference that please.


but anyhow i am not here to defend AA and i think you may have incorrectly assumed that i am a proponent of AA here to fight on that side. no way jose. i just find it amusing that someone can come up with a programme called rational recovery and then have you reel off intimations that require you to think of 'a beast' and all sorts of other ridiculous terminology under a rational thinking approach.

if some person whom knew nothing about RR happened to pass you by while you were in one of these self lecturing monologues they would almost certainly think you were for the birds.

i mean am i seeing the same stuff as you guys on the RR site or did i hit on a hoax site fo some sort.

e.


l

ballyharpat

What keeps you sober might get me drunk.

I think whatever resource people use to quit their addiction is a winner. What works for some may not work for others, it's great to see so many uninformed people on here taking a stab at AA, I have met people that have not gone to an AA meeting because of what they read about it on forums such as this.

The whole God thing- take what you want and leave the rest, just like in any other society, you have people that are too hardcore and become obsessed about it, "it's my way or the highway bs"
If people are strong enough to put personalities aside, they may not be so afraid of AA-a non profit organization-or maybe the members of AA are after something that I am not aware of.

There are agnostic meetings for AA, so people, if you don't fully understand AA, then please quit knocking it, you may be preventing that long-suffering drunk/addict from getting the help they deserve and need.

bank

I understand what your saying about AA and it is without a doubt a good organisation and has helped so many people. I am also against people knocking it without totally understanding the purpose behind it. People who go on about the "religious side" of it have not totally grasped the meaning of AA because the "higher power" is what ever you want it to be.

Having said that I am not a follower of AA for the simple reason is I personally don't believe it is a disease and I need to be true to myself. I just can't subscribe to something if I don't believe in it, it just wouldn't work for me. I believe it would have an adverse affect on me and keep me in denial, stopping me from taking responsibility for my bad choices. Yes of course lots of people love and believe in AA and good luck to them, I admire anyone taking action against addiction.

We need more alternatives for people in Ireand. We should all have a choice in the treatment that suits ourselves, no matter what that is and to know the choice we make and believe in is not ridiculed and put down by well meaning others.

At the end of the day we can all see that alcohol is a massive problem in Ireland that needs serious and immediate addressing. To think that the problem only lies with the drunk who ends up falling out of the pub or club at the end of the night is the unstatement of the century. Many people who lead very ordinary lives are having trouble with alcohol, perhaps not on a crisis scale but bad enough to worry about their health etc.

We need to get real and stop analysising our drinking habits, trying our best to come to the conclusion that perhaps we don't have a problem because the rest of the country are of course drinking far more etc.

iguana

enaekleon wrote: »

i just find it amusing that someone can come up with a programme called rational recovery and then have you reel off intimations that require you to think of 'a beast' and all sorts of other ridiculous terminology under a rational thinking approach.

It's an allegory, communicating its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Similar in a way to the novel Jeckyll and Hyde which many believe is also an allegory for alcoholism. Alcoholics generally do things which the person themselves, if not in the grip of addiction would be disgusted by. But when deep in their addiction everything that that person cares about comes second (if it's lucky) to the deep desire to drink. The addict when lucid is often filled with shame and sorrow for their actions while drunk/desperate to drink but this somehow tends to lead them back to drinking.

It's like they are two minds in one body. One who wants to be able to get on with their life and one who wants to drink at whatever cost. It's not just true of addicts, most people experience it to varying degrees, almost everyone debates with themselves at some point between what they want to do and what they should do. But with an active addict the consequences tend to be more severe.

Rational Recovery is basically the creation of an allegory which encourages you to think of the voice that wants a drink at any cost as a separate, hostile being. Something that at it's root is selfish and stupid but could destroy you. Then once you have visualised it like that you vow to not let it control you anymore. Visualisation of your negatives as other and vocalising your intentions to defeat that other is a tried and tested psychological method. Though it's success are varied depending on the person, their commitment to change and their belief in the method.

ballyharpat wrote: »

What works for some may not work for others, it's great to see so many uninformed people on here taking a stab at AA,

Most people who are critical of the organisation are critical because they are informed not because they don't have a clue. Most of the arguments I've heard against AA are based on intelligent reasoning based on personal experience, study and research. And all most all defences against those arguments are based on off the cuff, baseless assumptions of lack of experience.

I've been involved with AA and al-anon for an awful long time now. It certainly has it's merits, but it has also got much bigger flaws. I've done a lot of research into it's founding, it's early establishment and the abusive, disgusting excuse for a human being that was Bill Wilson. And it's success rates, which are lower than the success rates for just quitting all by yourself which isn't very high at all. It's an organisation which I firmly believe does an awful lot more harm than good.

It has some very excellent methods. The sponsor programme and the very fact that it creates somewhere that addicts can meet and support each other. But the philosophy it espouses is more dangerous than helpful to most and it's dominance in treatment philosophy is unhelpful because it prevents the far more successful methodologies from gaining acceptance.

enaekleon

iguana wrote: »

It's an allegory, communicating its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Similar in a way to the novel Jeckyll and Hyde which many believe is also an allegory for alcoholism. Alcoholics generally do things which the person themselves, if not in the grip of addiction would be disgusted by. But when deep in their addiction everything that that person cares about comes second (if it's lucky) to the deep desire to drink. The addict when lucid is often filled with shame and sorrow for their actions while drunk/desperate to drink but this somehow tends to lead them back to drinking.

It's like they are two minds in one body. One who wants to be able to get on with their life and one who wants to drink at whatever cost. It's not just true of addicts, most people experience it to varying degrees, almost everyone debates with themselves at some point between what they want to do and what they should do. But with an active addict the consequences tend to be more severe.

Rational Recovery is basically the creation of an allegory which encourages you to think of the voice that wants a drink at any cost as a separate, hostile being. Something that at it's root is selfish and stupid but could destroy you. Then once you have visualised it like that you vow to not let it control you anymore. Visualisation of your negatives as other and vocalising your intentions to defeat that other is a tried and tested psychological method. Though it's success are varied depending on the person, their commitment to change and their belief in the method.




Most people who are critical of the organisation are critical because they are informed not because they don't have a clue. Most of the arguments I've heard against AA are based on intelligent reasoning based on personal experience, study and research. And all most all defences against those arguments are based on off the cuff, baseless assumptions of lack of experience.

I've been involved with AA and al-anon for an awful long time now. It certainly has it's merits, but it has also got much bigger flaws. I've done a lot of research into it's founding, it's early establishment and the abusive, disgusting excuse for a human being that was Bill Wilson. And it's success rates, which are lower than the success rates for just quitting all by yourself which isn't very high at all. It's an organisation which I firmly believe does an awful lot more harm than good.

It has some very excellent methods. The sponsor programme and the very fact that it creates somewhere that addicts can meet and support each other. But the philosophy it espouses is more dangerous than helpful to most and it's dominance in treatment philosophy is unhelpful because it prevents the far more successful methodologies from gaining acceptance.

iguana wrote: »

It's an allegory, communicating its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. .

ok...sounds like many faith based beliefs, i mean even AA states categorically at the outset that you can believe in 'any' power whatsoever of' 'your own understanding'...

....Though it's success are varied depending on the person, their commitment to change and their belief in the method.........

ok and now we are getting even closer...


But the philosophy it espouses is more dangerous than helpful to most and it's dominance in treatment philosophy is unhelpful because it prevents the far more successful methodologies from gaining acceptance.
.....

bet you could argue that about RR also in a parallel universe where RR got foothold first.


i guess my point is both methods are patently unscientific and require you to make a leap of faith in the method itself and again i just find it amusing that RR has the word 'rational' in its title and at the sames time in practice employs allegory/symbolism/intangibles.

as i look more and more into this problem i see that there is no one fits all solution and that every person may find a different path or vehicle to help them to a point of sustained abstinence and some subgroups of that greater group will be under all sorts of delusions and unevidenced beliefs yet remain 'successful' in terms of their goal of abstinence.

more power to RR and AA and the like until such time as science fully understands and comes up with a solution to the problem.

e.

iguana

enaekleon wrote: »

ok...sounds like many faith based beliefs, i mean even AA states categorically at the outset that you can believe in 'any' power whatsoever of' 'your own understanding'...

What? It's not even remotely faith based. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm actually seriously baffled. Do you know what allegory means? Allegory has nothing at all to do with faith, it's a means of conveying a message.

It's a visualisation technique which uses methods similar to cognitive behavioural therapy. It completely rejects any faith based methods and uses psychological techniques which have reasonable success rates.

enaekleon

iguana wrote: »

What? It's not even remotely faith based. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm actually seriously baffled. Do you know what allegory means? Allegory has nothing at all to do with faith, it's a means of conveying a message.

It's a visualisation technique which uses methods similar to cognitive behavioural therapy. It completely rejects any faith based methods and uses psychological techniques which have reasonable success rates.

do you not have to have faith in the method? like you have to take on board the idea that this is how your minds works and that's why you drink and this is how you combat it. i mean the you have to take on (believe in) some very debatable assumptions if you are to make RR work for you from what i can see.

and 'reasonable success rates' can be found with many many approaches to many conditions. i mean even a 'placebo' (fake pills prescribed by a medic, say a sugar pill for example) can be said to have 'reasonable success rates' for a whole host of complex conditions.

i do understand that the approach is not based on any higher power or spirituality but there is some irony in the fact that you need to visualise your addiction as 'a beast.'

excuse my ignorance but is RR method a dressed up NLP approach?

iguana

enaekleon wrote: »

do you not have to have faith in the method? like you have to take on board the idea that this is how your minds works and that's why you drink and this is how you combat it. i mean the you have to take on (believe in) some very debatable assumptions if you are to make RR work for you from what i can see.

No you don't have to have faith in anything. Most people who are in the grip of active addiction become someone who they would never normally be, they do things that would appal them in normal circumstances. Things that do appal them when they are lucid, but yet they keep on drinking/using even though a part of them wants to stop. They are at odds with themselves as they have too conflicting agendas. Stop drinking and rebuild their life/ drink at any damn cost.

You are also obviously completely misunderstanding what is meant by beast. The word beast isn't biblical or demonic, it's animal, as in dumb beast, without intellect. Which is what RR describes the urge to drink as. It's stupid and thoughtless, it doesn't care about logic or the impact the drinking is having on it's life. It's nothing to do with faith or religion or evil spirits.

RR is about the addict having a stupid, thoughtless over-riding urge to drink in spite of all knowledge that it is destroying their lives and that ultimately all they have to do to stop drinking is conquer that urge.

I don't think you should even be having this discussion, because all I can see it doing is putting vulnerable people who read it off AA AND RR.

I've never done the RR thing but I'm sure it has it's own merits. People really need to stop knocking other people's recoveries. Alcohol addiction is a killer. It WILL kill you, so it might be best to focus on the benefits of recovery programs rather than their flaws.

derealbadger

iguana wrote: »

My husband is a recovering alcoholic and he really likes the rational recovery way of thinking. He feels it's the first philosophy he's come across that actually describes how he feels about drinking. He does go to AA meetings, he rejects their philosophy but he does find the company of other recovering alcoholics helpful.

I have to say that as the partner of an alcoholic I find the RR philosophy and it's programme for partners a hundred, thousand million times more helpful and sensible than anything I've ever heard in al-anon.

I'm not sure exactly what part of RR that the OP thinks is so wacky and off the wall? Especially in comparison to an organisation that thinks alcoholism is a disease and that some people are biologically incapable of consuming alcohol for genetic reasons, but that this biological disease can be beaten if the inflicted offers their will up to a non existent, mythical being. And that the loved ones of the inflicted are also struck with a sister disease that can also only be cured by offering their will up to the same being.

the world health organisation has labelled it a disease not A>A

iguana

derealbadger wrote: »

the world health organisation has labelled it a disease not A>A

Yup, but the WHO and the AMA have done that in large part for the specific reason of making sure that insurance companies have to pay for treatment of alcoholism and alcohol related health problems. They in fact define alcoholism as "a term of long-standing use and variable meaning."

And the AA have defined it as a disease since 1973.

mathepac

iguana wrote: »

... Though it's success are varied depending on the person, their commitment to change and their belief in the method. ...

Excellent allegory for the AA higher power. AA literature is very, very specific about the importance of what you have paraphrased so well. "If you want what we have and are willing to go to any lengths to get it ....", is one part of AA philosophy that is completely in agreement with your thinking, and AA would not make any claims to being the first group of people to espouse such a philosophy.

iguana wrote: »

... Most people who are critical of the organisation are critical because they are informed not because they don't have a clue. ...

I disagree and the negativity and criticism I see in this thread are typically based on a profound lack of knowledge of AA, complete indifference to what it stands for and a lack of appreciation or insight into its operation and achievements.

iguana wrote: »

... Most of the arguments I've heard against AA are based on intelligent reasoning based on personal experience, study and research ...

Excellent, let's hear some of it then. Can you provide links to evidence based on hard research that is "against AA "? Let's see the studies, the numbers, the independently verified research that supports your position.

iguana wrote: »

... And all most all defences against those arguments are based on off the cuff, baseless assumptions of lack of experience ...

Excellent again, because I just happen to be the right man in the right place and I never ever base my arguments on "off the cuff, baseless assumptions" and I do not suffer from a "lack of experience" in a number of relevant areas.

iguana wrote: »

... And it's success rates, which are lower than the success rates for just quitting all by yourself which isn't very high at all. ...

Again I'd be interested in reading the statistical comparisons, based on original research, that show this as fact.

iguana wrote: »

... It's an organisation which I firmly believe does an awful lot more harm than good...

Again I'd like to hear more hard evidence on this, either your own research or links to other independently verifiable sources, as like you said yourself, this "firm belief" stuff doesn't really hack it when you have hard facts and loads of numbers on your side.

iguana wrote: »

... But the philosophy it espouses is more dangerous than helpful to most ...

Once again I'd like to see some numbers on this and I'd like to see detailed the actual dangers it poses and the percentage that the philosophy poses dangers to.

iguana wrote: »

... and it's dominance in treatment philosophy is unhelpful because it prevents the far more successful methodologies from gaining acceptance.

In what specific ways is AA "treatment philosophy" unhelpful? Which specific "methodologies" are more successful than AA in treating alcohol dependency? How is "successful" measured? How is "not successful" measured? Are these longitudinal studies? Over what periods? How large were the studies and the population sizes?

Just a few closing remarks :

• I am not an AA spokesman, it doesn't need one and certainly not me
• AA runs a "program of attraction" and as above it says "If you want what we have..." come on in and we'll show you how it works for us
• It also says that the programme is "... meant to be suggestive only. We realise we know only a little ..." so there are other ways for other people. AA is not the only way and doesn't claim to be.
• AA was helping men and women recover from their alcohol problems before I was born. It has helped millions during my lifetime; it'll help millions more after I'm dead

iguana

mathepac wrote: »

Excellent, let's hear some of it then. Can you provide links to evidence based on hard research that is "against AA "? Let's see the studies, the numbers, the independently verified research that supports your position.

The AA themselves are the ones who quote a success rate of less than 5%. It's their own number. I don't think that I need to show statistics and research that verifies that less than 5% is a very, very low success rate.

And their dominance in treatment is very damaging because they make it so much harder for the more than 95% of alcoholics who look for help but don't find the AA helpful. I've spoken to addiction specialists who work with the NHS and places here like the Rutland centre who have told me that in their experiences the AA is more of a problem than a help. They see people in need who they can't be there for 24/7 and in most locations they can only recommend AA meetings when their clinic isn't open. But the many of the people they see tend to be in worse shape after those meetings as they use the philosophy espoused as an excuse. In areas were there are alternatives this doesn't happen so much.

Now, I'm going to believe the people who have 8 years of phd study and a couple of decades of addiction specialist experience behind them far more than anything I read online, I think anyone with a modicum of sense would. especially when independent studies of the Rutland centre show it as having an over 80% success rate, one of the highest in the world.

derealbadger

iguana wrote: »

The AA themselves are the ones who quote a success rate of less than 5%. It's their own number. I don't think that I need to show statistics and research that verifies that less than 5% is a very, very low success rate.

And their dominance in treatment is very damaging because they make it so much harder for the more than 95% of alcoholics who look for help but don't find the AA helpful. I've spoken to addiction specialists who work with the NHS and places here like the Rutland centre who have told me that in their experiences the AA is more of a problem than a help. They see people in need who they can't be there for 24/7 and in most locations they can only recommend AA meetings when their clinic isn't open. But the many of the people they see tend to be in worse shape after those meetings as they use the philosophy espoused as an excuse. In areas were there are alternatives this doesn't happen so much.

Now, I'm going to believe the people who have 8 years of phd study and a couple of decades of addiction specialist experience behind them far more than anything I read online, I think anyone with a modicum of sense would. especially when independent studies of the Rutland centre show it as having an over 80% success rate, one of the highest in the world.

i can study women for the next 50 yrs i still don't know what its like to be a woman

iguana

derealbadger wrote: »

i can study women for the next 50 yrs i still don't know what its like to be a woman

And????????

derealbadger

iguana wrote: »

And????????

studying the symptoms and causes of alcoholism doesn't mean that you understand what it is like to be an alcoholic and I think that your posts and this thread in general are dangerous and unhelpful I have no problem with somebody saying any form of help is useful but to be putting down a form of treatment that has saved millions of lives is just reckless the number one belief of Bill W was that when one alcoholic talks to another they have a power that they can never have by them selves as I believe you said your husband goes to A.A for that reason . I would ask you to go easy as you may be giving someone a death sentence I once thought like you but after going back out there for 10 years and coming back in i was ready to follow the suggestions and I know that i never need to take a drink again

mathepac

derealbadger wrote: »

... I know that i never need to take a drink again

Sorry to have to be so direct here but it sounds like you didn't learn very much. The indication that someone has learned would be a statement along the lines of "I know that I don't need a drink to-day".

iguana

derealbadger wrote: »

studying the symptoms and causes of alcoholism doesn't mean that you understand what it is like to be an alcoholic

And yet the Rutland centre has a success rate of higher than 80%. So actually I think they know what they are talking about and then some.

derealbadger wrote: »

the number one belief of Bill W

Do you know anything at all about Bill Wilson? His number one belief was that he deserved huge amounts of cash at other people's expense, both before and after his 'recovery,' that he deserved much adulation and that he could have sex with any of the vulnerable female alcoholics that came to the AA for help, to such an extent that the AA council had to implement a committee to protect the women he abused and try to keep him away from them.

He was also a massive user of LSD for a long time after his 'recovery,' had many mistresses who he promoted within the organisation. Wrote the 'from wives' part of the Big Book pretending it was written by Lois who he refused to allow write it, mentally abused that poor woman for their entire marriage, blamed her for his alcohol abuse and infidelities. Wrote in the Big Book, while pretending to be Lois, that women are responsible for their husband's infidelities. Tried to push LSD use in recovering alcoholics, abused his nurses in his final years. Lost his wife's family home because he wouldn't get a job but was happy to spend all of her wages that she earned working in a department store on his wants (this was after his 'recovery' and while he was founding AA.) He deliberately lied on an enormous scale about the amount of alcoholics he helped to recover in order to promote his book, claiming to have helped thousands when at the time there were only between 10-20 people who had started in AA and were not drinking at the time.

Bill Wilson was about as foul and disgusting as a human being can be. His bad behaviour had almost nothing whatsoever to do with his drinking. He was just a nasty, selfish jerk, drunk or sober.

derealbadger wrote: »

I think that your posts and this thread in general are dangerous and unhelpful

And I know that the AA can be dangerous and unhelpful to a lot of people. Even just the women who were abused by Wilson were too many. They create a philosophy which allows addicts to excuse their behaviour and keep on drinking. There are many, many specialists out there, with fantastic success rate for really getting addicts sober who despise the AA.

There is no doubt that they do help people, but there is also no doubt that they hurt people. A lot of people. The problem is their dominance. If they openly said, 'We are just one method out of many, we do help a lot of people, but we may not be for you. Please try our methods, even if you aren't initially convinced give it X amount of weeks to be sure. But if you still don't find us helpful there are lots of alternatives.' Then they would be wonderful and utterly faultless. There is no reason for a supposed charitable organisation not to do that. But instead they claim that they are the only way to find help and if you stop drinking without their help you were never really an alcoholic anyway. In some countries they have even positioned themselves that people can be court mandated to attend their sessions . That's just not right, not right at all. However they are a very, very wealthy organisation with a lot of power in some countries, that's not how charities should operate.

derealbadger

mathepac wrote: »

Sorry to have to be so direct here but it sounds like you didn't learn very much. The indication that someone has learned would be a statement along the lines of "I know that I don't need a drink to-day".

i did not say that i would never drink again I said I never need drink again but i can see how you might be confused

mathepac

iguana wrote: »

The AA themselves are the ones who quote a success rate of less than 5%. It's their own number. I don't think that I need to show statistics and research that verifies that less than 5% is a very, very low success rate...

Can you show a link to a report, produced and published by AA, or endorsed by either AA World Services or AA General Services that quotes that number?

I believe you need to substantiate the ridiculous and damaging claims you make about matters you patently know very little about.

iguana wrote: »

... And their dominance in treatment is very damaging because they make it so much harder for the more than 95% of alcoholics who look for help but don't find the AA helpful. I've spoken to addiction specialists who work with the NHS and places here like the Rutland centre who have told me that in their experiences the AA is more of a problem than a help. They see people in need who they can't be there for 24/7 and in most locations they can only recommend AA meetings when their clinic isn't open. But the many of the people they see tend to be in worse shape after those meetings as they use the philosophy espoused as an excuse. In areas were there are alternatives this doesn't happen so much...

I have never heard such utter garbage in my life.

Let me get this straight. The problem with AA is that because the commercial treatment centre you mention, which charges significant sums for their residential treatment programmes and after-care, can't provide 24/7 support their clients, they refer their clients in need of out-of-hours support to a voluntary, self-funded, self-help organisation, knowing in advance about the damage their clients will suffer there and knowing they will "use the philosophy espoused as an excuse".

If this is true, and I don't believe it for one second, then the commercial treatment centre concerned should be closed, as clearly you are alleging that their staff are behaving unprofessionally and contrary to the best interests of their clients.

iguana wrote: »

... Now, I'm going to believe the people who have 8 years of phd study and a couple of decades of addiction specialist experience behind them far more than anything I read online, I think anyone with a modicum of sense would...

We here in internet-land don't have the luxury of having access to the founts of knowledge and wisdom you seem to have and quote from, hence my request for links to information. Without those links we are faced with the same dilemma you face - your posts have zero credibility.

iguana wrote: »

... especially when independent studies of the Rutland centre show it as having an over 80% success rate, one of the highest in the world.

I am not aware of the existence of any such reports or studies, but I'd be grateful for links or references. If yet again you can't provide references to hard data, then it is my firm belief that your statements should be dismissed as trolling and potentially damaging to people and organisations doing valuable work.

iguana

mathepac wrote: »

Let me get this straight. The problem with AA is that because the commercial treatment centre you mention, which charges significant sums for their residential treatment programmes and after-care, can't provide 24/7 support their clients, they refer their clients in need of out-of-hours support to a voluntary, self-funded, self-help organisation, knowing in advance about the damage their clients will suffer there and knowing they will "use the philosophy espoused as an excuse".

Leave out the NHS there for some reason? Maybe because it craps on your argument?

And the less than 5% figure is widely known. Like I said it's their own figure.

mathepac

iguana wrote: »

Leave out the NHS there for some reason? Maybe because it craps on your argument? ...

The NHS has no relevance for me as I don't live in the UK.

My "argument" consists primarily of requests for you to provide data to substantiate your seriously flawed arguments. So far, unsurprisingly, you have provided none because as I suspected you have none to offer.

iguana wrote: »

... And the less than 5% figure is widely known. Like I said it's their own figure.

Ah yes "widely known", a first cousin to "well-known fact" and the off-spring of "but sure everyone knows"; in other words there is nothing tangible to back it up.

iguana

mathepac wrote: »

The NHS has no relevance for me as I don't live in the UK.

That's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "Oooohhh, the opinions of specialist psychologist who help hundreds of thousands of people, have decades of experience and training and more expertise on the subject than most people alive have no relevance because they are in another country, less than 50 miles away." If that's the level of your argument I truly despair.

Fine facts. Of course many of these studies were conducted in other countries, so I guess they will mean nothing to you.:rolleyes: Despite your utter ignorance I've put a titchy fraction of stuff I'm working on together. It's all annotated , so feel free to research further if you wish, it shouldn't take too long. I'm putting together a lot of this information for my work, though it's for an English organisation so obviously it's not real to you, and have it on hardcopy, I typed most of this out, you can do your own googling of the studies. It'll take a while but it'll be damn quicker than all this typing.

I grabbed the diagram from the Orange Papers, you'll find all of this info there too, though they dismiss the AA in ways that go so far beyond anything I feel. But they are a good jumping off point if you have 18 months or so to keep researching like I have. (Spending time conducting personal interviews aside.) Uniformed? Ha!:rolleyes:

A.A.'s own triennial surveys, conducted by the A.A. headquarters (the GSO), say that:

* 81% of the newcomers are gone within 30 days,
* 90% are gone in 3 months, and
* 95% are gone at the end of a year.



In addition barely one percent of the newcomers to A.A. get a 10-year coin for sobriety, and only 3/4 of one percent get the 11-year coin. Only half of one percent — 5 out of a thousand — get the 15-year coin, and only one in a thousand gets the 20-year coin.

Professor George Vaillant of Harvard University, who is also a member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, conducted what I believe is still to date the longest running study of the success of AA. The plan was to prove how excellent the AA is and lasted 8 years. The conclusions were that 5% of participants stayed sober, 66% were still drinking and 29% had died from alcohol related illnesses. This is by far and away the highest rate of death of any alcoholism treatment in existence.

Australian General Service Conference 1994
Chairman's Opening Address

"Our 1992 Survey showed that only 5% of newcomers to AA are still attending meetings after 12 months. This is a truly terrible statistic. Again we must ask 'Where does the fault lie?'"

Dr. Ron Whitington — Chairman, General Service Board.

1994 WORLD SERVICE MEETING
HIGHLIGHTS
COUNTRY REPORT
AUSTRALIA

Dr. Jeffrey Brandsma and his associates Dr. Maxie Maultsby and Dr. Richard J. Welsh did a study where they took alcoholics who had been arrested for public drunkenness, and randomly divided them into three groups, which got one of:

1. A.A. treatment
2. Lay RBT (non-professional Rational Behavior Therapy, something invented by Dr. Maxie Maultsby and Dr. Albert Ellis, something very similar to SMART)
3. No treatment at all. This was the control group.

And the results were that the variables that showed significant differences at outcome could be organized into three categories: treatment holding power, legal difficulties, and drinking behavior. Treatment holding power was indicated by the percentage of dropouts between intake and outcome (p = 0.05), the mean number of treatment sessions attended (p = 0.05), and the mean number of days in treatment. Less than one-third (31.6%) of the clients assigned to the AA group qualified for outcome measures in contrast to almost 60% for the lay-RBT group, and this occurred with equivalent attempts by our social work staff to keep the men in treatment, whatever type it was.

There were two measures of legal difficulties, both self-reported during the last 3 months. The means for the number of arrests (p = 0.04) are: lay-RBT, 1.24; AA, 1.67; and control, 1.79. The results for convictions (p = 0.02) are very similar.

The lay-RBT group had significantly fewer arrests and convictions than did the control group. ...

All of the lay-RBT clients reported drinking less during the last 3 months. This was significantly better than the AA or the control groups at the 0.005 level. The lay-RBT group also reported on two variables (one a direct question, the other a summated series of questions) that it was less important to drink now to be sociable. In this regard the lay-RBT group was significantly different from the control group, whereas the AA group was not differentiated from either of the other two groups.

Three months after terminating treatment the only variables that revealed differences concerned drinking behavior. ... In this analysis AA was five times more likely to binge than the control and nine times more likely than the lay-RBT. The AA group average was 2.4 binges in the last 3 months since outcome.
Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.

A controlled study of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous was conducted in San Diego in the mid-nineteen-sixties. It is described in "A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests", by Keith S. Ditman, M.D., George C. Crawford, LL.B., Edward W. Forgy, Ph.D., Herbert Moskowitz, Ph.D., and Craig MacAndrew, Ph.D., in the American Journal of Psychiatry.1

In the study, 301 public drunkenness offenders were sentenced by the court to one of three "treatment programs". The offenders were randomly divided into three groups:

* a control group that got no treatment at all,
* a second group that was sent to a professional alcoholism treatment clinic,
* and a third group that was sent to Alcoholics Anonymous.

All of the subjects were followed for at least a full year following conviction. Surprisingly, the no-treatment group did the best, and Alcoholics Anonymous did the worst, far worse than simply receiving no treatment at all. When the rates of re-arrest for public drunkenness were calculated, the following results were obtained:

Number of Rearrests Among 241 Offenders in Three Treatment Groups
Treatment Group NO
re-arrests Re-arrested
Once Re-arrested 2
or more times Total
No treatment 32 (44%) 14 (19%) 27 (37%) 73
Professional clinic 26 (32%) 23 (28%) 33 (40%) 82
Alcoholics Anonymous 27 (31%) 19 (22%) 40 (47%) 86

In every category, the people who got no treatment at all fared better than the people who got A.A. "treatment". Based on the records of re-arrests, only 31% of the A.A.-treated clients were deemed successful, while 44% of the "untreated" clients were successful.

In 1996, The National Longitudinal Alcoholism Epidemiological Survey was designed by the NIAAA and conducted by the US Bureau of the Census. The survey was large, both in terms of people, tens of thousands, and in terms of time, 20 years. Deborah A. Dawson, of the NIAAA, filtered out 4585 subjects who had displayed standard DSM-IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependency symptoms, and analyzed those people. There were populations of people who had not received any treatment, and those who had. The commonest treatment modality by far was the A.A. Twelve-Step "spiritual therapy." The treatments were a cross section of all of the standard treatments used in the USA, which means that at least 85% — probably 93%11 — of the treatment programs were based on the A.A. Twelve-Step program. The results were: 20 years after the onset of alcoholism symptoms, 80% of those who had undergone treatment were either abstinent, or "drinking without abuse or dependence." But, of those who had never received any treatment, 90% were either abstinent or drinking non-problematically.

There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit. Others used such phrases as "Things were building up" or "I was sick and tired of it." Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.
Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction — Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.
(See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III).)

And to round it off from the 'lovely' Bill W;

You have no conception these days of how much failure we had. You had to cull over hundreds of these drunks to get a handful to take the bait.
Bill Wilson, at the memorial service for Dr. Bob, Nov. 15, 1952

mathepac

"The NHS has no relevance for me as I don't live in the UK." A reasonable person would conclude from that statement that as I don't live there, I am not familiar with how they are organised, don't access their services, I'm not familiar with their modus operandi, client populations, etc. I don't know where you live but the UK is a lot more than 50 miles from me.

Instead of the reasoned conclusions above, I get the following :

iguana wrote: »

... "Oooohhh, the opinions of specialist psychologist who help hundreds of thousands of people, have decades of experience and training and more expertise on the subject than most people alive have no relevance because they are in another country, less than 50 miles away." If that's the level of your argument I truly despair...

That is just about the most stupid thing I've ever read but as I didn't type it or imply it, it doesn't reflect on me, but it certainly reflects poorly on the author.

I notice you have the word "moderator" attached to your profile. From that I would have expected a degree of moderation and balance to your posts, not the angry, vitriolic and sarcastic put-down attempts in your post above. I believe this to be an abuse of your position and the polar opposite of the expectations reasonable posters would have of a moderator.

BTW, in terms of evidence and research I'd expected something more substantial than a hand-drawn graph, a sentence from a 58 year old memorial service oration and a 45 year old study of a population of 301 Californians convicted of public drunkenness. The statement that "... 5% of newcomers to AA are still attending meetings after 12 months... " [Dr. Ron Whitington — Chairman, General Service Board, Australian General Service Conference 1994] does not in any way prove that the other 95% are back drinking. Similarly, the percentages showing up at medal-giving ceremonies (in the US ?) 20+ years ago are in no way indicative of the number of people who have returned to drinking.

I'll look out the other references and post my views on them at my leisure, but so far based on what I've had time to review, it seems to add up to a "ball of smoke" in research terms and a waste of time, money and effort, hopefully just your own.

iguana

mathepac wrote: »

I'll look out the other references and post my views on them at my leisure, but so far based on what I've had time to review, it seems to add up to a "ball of smoke" in research terms and a waste of time, money and effort, hopefully just your own.

Ok. Again with the incredibly stupid hyperbole; 'hopefully just your own' when I've annotated the doctors and scientists involved. The 'hand-drawn graph' is part of the AA's trennial study, if you want to criticise anyone w=for hand drawing their graphs, it's the AA you have issue with. And while you are at it why don't you start showing up some evidence that back up claims that the AA, which you clearly support, makes. Such as;

RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way.
A.A. Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, page 58.

Especially when their own studies show such low success rates alongside death rates so high that Dr Valliant called them appalling. Yet instead of using this information to reassess their methods and work out what parts work and what parts don't and make their organisation into what it claims to be, he concluded all alcoholics should still go to the AA in order to 'get an attitude change by confessing their sins to a high-status healer.'

Also the AA officially AA takes a strong stand about the use of medication in recovery. They have been outspoken about Suboxone, Campral, Naltrexone, Benzos, and Opioid medications stating folks who use them are not really in recovery. (All this in spite of Wilson's long standing advocation of LSD for recovery 'treatment.') Oh they call AA an illness and a disease but try to treat it with proven drugs which lessen the physical cravings or stop the seriously damaging occasionally fatal effects of withdrawal and they castigate you for not truly being in treatment. Every single medical doctor I have spoken to about withdrawal has stated that a chronic alcoholic should never, ever attempt to quit without medical observation and use of a cycled down programme of opioids like chlordiazepoxide. In fact just about every AA member I have spoken to agrees on that, the risks of unassisted withdrawal are too great. But the official message is that this should not be done and then they wonder at having the highest death rate.

Look the AA has merits, I really believe it does but as it currently operates I know it is harmful to more people than it is helpful. And the people they help get better for one main reason. That person. It's true of every treatment method. No group or higher power or selection of steps or therapists or even medications will stop somebody from drinking if they do not want to. If someone gets better it's down to them first and foremost and a supportive family and peer group who help without enabling second. (That peer group can include other recovered alcoholics who they meet in treatment.) But really and truly the most important thing is the person themselves. They made a decision to claim their life back, they chose, they lived through the cravings and the insecurities and made it out the other side - mostly by themselves.