Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?
Options
Comments
-
Just one quick point, bcos I think I have discussed most of the others in the thread so far, and don't have time, at the moment, to reply to all of the post, but, "a spirit of the universe" is not the Judeo-Christian god. It is actually a more "new-agey" idea of god, which is closer to - but not necessarily the same as - the pantheistic interpretation, rather than the monotheistic god of the Judeo-Christian religions.
It's definitely new age, more spiritual in nature rather than religious.
A simple programme for complicated people.0 -
-
-
It's almost like a meta-religion, where all religions can participate and even those with none. I think they might be onto something heregaynorvader wrote: »It's open to interpretation. If anything has convinced me that the 12 steps is a religion this is it :pac:
0 -
On the effectiveness or otherwise of AA, there are some studies which seem to have found it overall worse than other treatments or no treatment (which is very worrying).
One study found the AA group being studied were much more likely to binge drink than the control or other treatment group (some have suggested that the 12 steps might encourage a learned helplessness, and that this might account for the greater binge drinking found in this study).
There were 3 groups in the study, an AA group, a non-professional lay delivered Rational Behaviour Therapy (lay-RBT), and a control group who received no treatment.
[my emphasis]
All of the lay-RBT [Rational Behaviour Therapy] 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Quoted here [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Another study of effectively coerced treatment found the no-treatment groups did a bit better than AA or a hospital based treatment (I don't know what this involved). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]", 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., [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]American Journal of Psychiatry, 1967[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But the results from this study might just tell us that coerced treatment is a bad idea. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Another study with AA having the worst outcome was : A Randomized Trial of Treatment Options for Alcohol-Abusing Workers Diana Chapman Walsh et al, 1991. [/FONT]
[my emphasis]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]On seven measures of drinking and drug use, however, we found significant differences at several follow-up assessments. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The hospital group fared best and that assigned to AA the least well[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]; those allowed to choose a program had intermediate outcomes. Additional inpatient treatment was required significantly more often (P<0.0001) by the AA group (63 percent) and the choice group (38 percent) than by subjects assigned to initial treatment in the hospital (23 percent). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Randomized Trial of Treatment Options for Alcohol-Abusing Workers Diana Chapman Walsh et al, 1991. [/FONT]
There was a study conducted by by Professor George E Vaillant and and William Clark. They followed patients who had done a 12 step programme. Vaillant also compiled results from previous studies and also had figures from untreated alcoholics.
Vaillant was an advocate of 12 step programmes and was a member of the Alcoholics Annonymous World Service Board of Trustees for many years. This is what Vaillant wrote about what they found:
[my emphasis]
It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic, by using multimodality therapy, by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics [A.A. members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of A.A., I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I and the director, William Clark, tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients, the Clinic sample described in Chapter 3, every year for the next 8 years. ...
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease... Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling.[/FONT]
The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, 1983, Vaillant
Quoted http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
0 -
Advertisement
-
Back to the religious argument....
AA was an offshoot of the Oxford group. The 12 steps (and some practices such confessing one's "sins" in a meeting) are taken from the Oxford Group. Therefore AA was not a rationally based programme based on best-practice for alcoholics, but a result of some alcoholics thinking that a spiritual awakening had helped them deal with their alcoholism and deciding to spread this idea amongst alcoholics. That some alcoholics get something out of it, doesn't mean AA or the 12 steps are best practice, or that the ideas on which the 12 steps are based are sound.
That the AA is non-sectarian is not evidence of it being non-religious (apparently the Oxford group didn't insist people leave their original religion).
Interestingly for a non-religious group they seem a bit overly keen to retain the God-stuff in the 12 steps. Interesting article here about a non-religious AA group being de-listed http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/06/03/does_religion_belong_at_aa_fight_over_god_splits_toronto_aa_groups.html
If AA were a properly evidence-based approach, and if it was genuinely non-religious, why does it feel the need to defend the 12 steps as if they were infallible? Why not let people remove the God references? Why don't they take the initiative themselves and write up a secular version? Probably because if you remove God from the 12 steps you remove the "cure".
Why have they not changed and adapted the 12 steps as we learnt things about alcoholism? I think it has not adapted to new evidence because it is a spiritual programme and not a rational scientifically based programme (which should be responsive to evidence). Apparently we knew all that there was to know about alcoholism and the cure decades ago so why change now :rolleyes:
This is an interesting article on the "God as we understood him" trick of AA, and why it might not be as cuddly and inclusive as it might sound to some.
http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2009/04/17/learning-to-believe-in-the-god-of-alcoholics-anonymous/
Some other very good articles here on AA http://stinkin-thinkin.com/stinkin-thinkin-essential-reading/0 -
On the effectiveness or otherwise of AA, there are some studies which seem to have found it overall worse than other treatments or no treatment (which is very worrying).
One study found the AA group being studied were much more likely to binge drink than the control or other treatment group (some have suggested that the 12 steps might encourage a learned helplessness, and that this might account for the greater binge drinking found in this study).
There were 3 groups in the study, an AA group, a non-professional lay delivered Rational Behaviour Therapy (lay-RBT), and a control group who received no treatment.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Another study of effectively coerced treatment found the no-treatment groups did a bit better than AA or a hospital based treatment (I don't know what this involved). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]", 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., [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]American Journal of Psychiatry, 1967[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But the results from this study might just tell us that coerced treatment is a bad idea. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Another study with AA having the worst outcome was : A Randomized Trial of Treatment Options for Alcohol-Abusing Workers Diana Chapman Walsh et al, 1991. [/FONT]
Do any of these studies test people who have worked through the 12-steps? Because it seems most just test people based on the attendance of meetings, which of course isn't the same as the complete 12-step program.
There was a study conducted by by Professor George E Vaillant and and William Clark. They followed patients who had done a 12 step programme. Vaillant also compiled results from previous studies and also had figures from untreated alcoholics.
Vaillant was an advocate of 12 step programmes and was a member of the Alcoholics Annonymous World Service Board of Trustees for many years. This is what Vaillant wrote about what they found:
Taken from an interview with Dr.Valiant after he joined the general service board of AA in 1998 (the quoted report is from 1983)Grapevine Publication wrote:[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]George E. Vaillant, M.D., joined AA's General Service Board as a Class A (nonalcoholic) trustee in 1998
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Grapevine: You said about 40 percent of the people who remain abstinent do it through AA. What about the other 60 percent? Could we in AA be more open, more supportive of these?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]George Vaillant: Yes. You know, if you're batting 400, it's all right to miss a few. I think the fact that AA knows the answer to an extremely complicated problem is probably all right.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But it doesn't hurt at the level of GSO for AA to have humility and understand that 60 percent do it without AA. It's also true that most of those 60 percent do it with the AA toolbox: their spirituality doesn't come from AA; their support group doesn't come from AA; and what I call "substitute dependency" doesn't come from AA. But they still use the same ingredients that AA uses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And I don't think there's anything that the other 60 percent are doing that AA needs to learn from, except: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you meet someone who has stayed sober for more than three years and they're pleased and boasting that they did it without AA, thank your Higher Power for another recovery. You know, there's "little" sobriety, being dry, and there's sobriety with a big S, which includes humility and not thinking that you're the center of the earth. So if someone is doing something without your help, good enough.[/FONT]
wiki linkwiki wrote:Vaillant, who is a non-alcoholic Trustee of AA, made the effectiveness of AA one of the key questions to be investigated in his research.[62] Vaillant argues that AA and other similar groups effectively harness the above four factors of healing and that many alcoholics achieve sobriety through AA attendance. However, he also notes that the “effectiveness of AA has not been adequately assessed”[63] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA… remains as elusive as ever.[64] For example, if an alcoholic achieves sobriety during AA attendance, who is to say if AA helped or if he merely went to AA when he was ready to heal?[9][65]
In the Clinic sample, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who achieved sobriety eventually attended 300 or more AA meetings,[66] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[67] In the Core City sample the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed—after all, AA meetings are rarely attended for hedonistic reasons.[68] The implication from all three samples was simply that many alcoholics find help through AA
Again, an issue with these studies appears to be that they test people who attend meetings as opposed to people who have worked through the steps.0 -
That AA is non-sectarian is not, indeed, evidence of it being non-religious, but it is as religious as each individual member chooses, or understands it to be.Back to the religious argument....
AA was an offshoot of the Oxford group. The 12 steps (and some practices such confessing one's "sins" in a meeting) are taken from the Oxford Group. Therefore AA was not a rationally based programme based on best-practice for alcoholics, but a result of some alcoholics thinking that a spiritual awakening had helped them deal with their alcoholism and deciding to spread this idea amongst alcoholics. That some alcoholics get something out of it, doesn't mean AA or the 12 steps are best practice, or that the ideas on which the 12 steps are based are sound.
That the AA is non-sectarian is not evidence of it being non-religious (apparently the Oxford group didn't insist people leave their original religion).
The talk of religion is somewhat of a misnomer, because the term is loaded with pre-conceptions. Even at it's most diluted meaning, simply being the belief in a "god", the term "god" itself is loaded with pre-conceptions.
But, I think a non-sectarian religion, which is open to all religious beliefs and doesn't try - in practicality - to impose beliefs on its members, is probably diametrically opposed to what most people think when they think of religion - except perhaps Buddhism.
Personally, I would like to see the term god removed from the 12-steps bcos I think it can be problematic for many people and I think it could be replaced without doing any harm. But if I were to adapt the steps in a manner that I thought would be beneficial, I wouldn't expect to be listed on the AA website, bcos what I would be "offering" wouldn't be the 12-seps of Alcoholics Anonymous.Interestingly for a non-religious group they seem a bit overly keen to retain the God-stuff in the 12 steps. Interesting article here about a non-religious AA group being de-listed http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/06/03/does_religion_belong_at_aa_fight_over_god_splits_toronto_aa_groups.html
As per the article:
Residential treatment programs which work based on the 12-steps are not allowed to call themselves AA either, bcos they are not open to the public.for the most part, the organization — which claims 113,000 groups around the world — permits other agencies to imitate its program, but not to call themselves Alcoholics Anonymous.If AA were a properly evidence-based approach, and if it was genuinely non-religious, why does it feel the need to defend the 12 steps as if they were infallible? Why not let people remove the God references? Why don't they take the initiative themselves and write up a secular version? Probably because if you remove God from the 12 steps you remove the "cure".
Why have they not changed and adapted the 12 steps as we learnt things about alcoholism? I think it has not adapted to new evidence because it is a spiritual programme and not a rational scientifically based programme (which should be responsive to evidence). Apparently we knew all that there was to know about alcoholism and the cure decades ago so why change now :rolleyes:AA is not an evidence based program, and has never claimed to be. It has always been based on anecdotal evidence and first hand experience - largely bcos research into the area of addiction was, and still appears to be negligible. Essentially people go, try it out, if they see others who attribute their sobriety to AA then they try to do the things they do - to a point, in the hope that it will work for them. Their own personal success is the only evidence they require - although research into the area would be great.
It probably is the case that some people defend the steps as though they are infallible, such is human nature, but that is by no means the case for everyone. People are free to remove the references to god, people are free to write up a secular version of the steps, the things is, if they do, then they would no longer be the steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. People are free to start up their own groups based on the 12-steps, but if different groups come up with different amended steps, then there could be many different versions of "the 12-steps of AA". Again, people are free to do this if they want, but if they change the steps, then they are - almost by definition - no longer AA.
You talk about changing the steps, based on evidence. What parts would you change and based on what evidence?
I'll just address some of the points raised by the author, in the first article. I won't address all of them bcos I couldn't be bothered right now (I might come back to it later).This is an interesting article on the "God as we understood him" trick of AA, and why it might not be as cuddly and inclusive as it might sound to some.
http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2009/04/17/learning-to-believe-in-the-god-of-alcoholics-anonymous/
Some other very good articles here on AA http://stinkin-thinkin.com/stinkin-thinkin-essential-reading/
I would be interested in where he got the figure alright. I suspect it is just plucked from the air. I would, however, also be interested in reading what immediately precedes where he jumps into the quote. Is the statement qualified in some way?How does he come with the figure of 95%? He just pulls it out of thin air. He actually has his figures ass-backwards. Alcoholics are no different than people within the general population who have no drinking problem, and the majority of people (Americans, at least) believe in God - 92%
Also, the author makes the assumption that the belief in god among the american population is reflected in alcoholics. How do we know that this s the case. It certainly isn't the case among atheists. If you take a group of American atheists, you can't generalise that bcos 92% of Americans believe in god, that 92% of this group will also believe in god. It could well be the case that a higher proportion of alcoholics don't believe in god than the rest of the general population. That's not to say the 95% figure is true, but alcoholics might often be of such disposition that they have turned away from religion (not all of course) or live their lives, in a practical sense, without a belief in god.
Does the author have evidence for this? Indeed, that has been a subject of discussion in this thread. Is the author conflating people who go to meetings with people who work through the steps?This is true. In fact, most will – just as most will go back to their addiction who work the steps
This is not what the Chesnut is saying. He is saying that the 12-steps is a spiritual program. Things like self-examination, making amends, practicing meditation, and helping others are what make it a "spiritual" program. Granted, he is a bit OTT in saying "it is the greatest outpouring..." - perhaps it might be the greatest that he, himself, has experienced.You must pray within the smoke filled confines of AA, or God will ignore you, just as He ignored you while you wasting your life away drinking, before you walked in the doors of AA; and, just as he will ignore you again if you leave AA.
The author, however, is projecting his own ideas onto Chesnut, as well as his own interpretation of god.
Again, this is not what Chesnut says. What he says is that people who do return to religion often times don't return to the religion of their childhood. AA doesn't effectively become their new religion (although for some it might).So after a year or so, the person has been effectively indoctrinated into the cult of AA. AA is effectively the person’s new religion.
Personally, I started to become interested in Buddhism in recovery, having been raised in the RCC - I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, a catholic, or any other religion (and I no longer attend 12-step meetings).
The "brainwashing" he is referring to is doing the work in the steps; things like self-examination, making amends, practicing meditation, and helping others. Indeed, no doctor would do that, and neither does any sponsor. People will ask questions and sponsors will generally try to answer them, but in the case of all of the above, we can't know what benefit they will have until we actually do them. We can read in books what the practice of meditation will do for us, but until we actually engage in the practice and experience the benefits for ourselves, then we can't actually know.This is a perfect description of brainwashing. It certainly is not akin to any kind of legitimate therapy. No doctor will say, “swallow this pill and go inside this machine and take this IV, and don’t ask questions”
It's like someone going to a therapist, who resists in the beginning saying, why do I even need to go. It's only after going that they might see the benefits.
What the sponsor simply does is demonstrate that the individual doesn't control the universe, therefore there is something more than her and something more powerful - we can't even control our own thinking!This is nothing more than the preaching of religion, and not just any religion, but a religion that says “we are puppets on a string, controlled by God.” This is a slap in the face even to those who believe in a creator, but who also believe He has given us freewill. The sponsor’s point was that that which cannot be explained, has to be done by the hand of God. This is nothing more than a false dichotomy, asking “Can you make these leaves grow, or does God make these leaves grow?” The concept of natural selection never entered the conversation. Even if you acquiesce to the idea that your higher power is the force of nature, you would have to believe that the same force that causes wind or leaves to grow, will also keep you from drinking alcohol.
The sponsor doesn't provide a false dichotomy; he doesn't suggest that it's either her or god controlling the leaves, rather that she can have such a nebulous idea of god that, whatever makes the leaves grow is the same thing that will help her recover if she does the practical things in the steps, like self-examination, making amends, practicing meditation, and helping others.
It's funny that the author does say that "even if you acquiesce.....the same force ... will also keep you from drinking alcohol" and he mentions natural selection in the previous lines. It seems as though he is unfamiliar with how the steps work and assumes that "defects of character" are magically removed just by praying as opposed to doing the practical steps. If he weren't then he might be able to see that the same force that makes the trees grow is the same thing that will keep you from drinking alcohol. Evolution has lead to the human mind being such that the aforementioned, practical steps affect the neuro-physiology of the brain, which in turn affects the thinking of the individual, which affects behaviours and which therefore affects the behaviour of alcoholism.
Right, it's hometime.0 -
I have outlined how they can be interpreted through the paradigm of pantheism without ignoring anything - to paraphrase yourself, how could I be ignoring them if I am addressing them directly?
You have addressed nothing of the sort. You simply show us THAT you parse it through such a paradigm. The fact is however that the 12 steps very clearly describe a personal, interventionalist god. If you can ignore that, that is great for you. I have no issue with that. But I am not going to ignore the ignoring. That is all my point is. I will assume that you have no meaningful response and that there is no point explaining it to you further.
As I said however the "god is everything and everything is just an instantiation of god" concept of pantheism we see trotted out here by people like nagirrac is so dilute and meaningless that it can be made compatible with just about anything. Not just the religious "12 steps" used by AA. This brand of pantheism says so little, to the point of saying nothing. And if you are saying nothing, it will be compatible with everything. And you are. Saying nothing.If that is not the point that you are making, then it might be better advised to stop making it.
Or more to the point, if it is not the point I am making, then it might be better advised to stop acting like I did. But as I pointed out, misrepresenting me is your MO of choice in this thread.
I can not "stop" making a point I am not making. I can only continue to make the points I am.
The point I do make is that we simply lack any statistics whatsoever to support any assertion as to the positive efficacy of the AA 12 step program. Much less from anyone on this thread.I am not trying to claim that there is statistics to back-up the success of the 12-step model, however, that there are no reliable statistics doesn't mean that it isn't effective.
Another statement that says absolutely nothing at all. It smacks of the same kind of rhetoric as a theist saying "I have no evidence for god, but you have no evidence there is NO god either". It is, in other words, a statement that simply ignores where the burden of proof lies. No one has to show AA is ineffective. The onus of evidence lies entirely and solely at the feet of those that say it IS effective.
You might as well tell me that the complete lack of any evidence that homeopathy performs better than placebo does not mean it isn't effective. You are simply saying nothing, but using as many words as possible to say it.I see you are confusing parody for reasoned argumentation.
Nope, because misrepresentation is NEITHER. It is just dishonest. So I am confusing nothing at all thanks. I see to have to spent more time in my replies to you picking your words out of my teeth, than making my own points, such is your need to misrepresent what I have said and done.Even those respected scientists who have set about trying to demonstrate the ineffectual nature of the 12-step program seem to have missed a glaringly obvious point, that they need to be sampling people who have actually worked through the steps.
If scientists are working to show it to be INEFFECTIVE then the glaringly obvious point they have missed is not the one you suggest. It is that they should not be doing so at all. They need the onus of evidence and burden of proof explained to them just as much as some of the people on this thread do.In the practical application some people do indeed have very varied interpretations of their "higher power" and, in general, no one tries to convert them to anything else.
My point exactly. They are taking what is written clearly there, ignoring it, and putting in their own interpretation. That is what I have been saying all along.The benefit of the steps comes from the practical steps such as self-examination, making amends, meditation, and helping others.
Then by all means re-write the 12 steps to remove the religious nonsense and potentially damaging stuff, and produce a new version with the things you feel are beneficial and effective. And then measure the efficacy and effect of your new program.0 -
And such a paradigm requires no deletion or dilution of the steps, as has been outlined. I have outlined why, but you have failed to directly address the points that were raised.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You have addressed nothing of the sort. You simply show us THAT you parse it through such a paradigm. The fact is however that the 12 steps very clearly describe a personal, interventionalist god. If you can ignore that, that is great for you. I have no issue with that. But I am not going to ignore the ignoring. That is all my point is. I will assume that you have no meaningful response and that there is no point explaining it to you further.
Indeed, you may consider it so but such a conceptualisation of god comes from spiritual (not necessarily religious) traditions which predate the christian concept. Personally, I would be inclined to believe that the christian conceptualisation is just a bastardisation of that concept which followed from the politicisation of the spiritual teachings which preceded that.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As I said however the "god is everything and everything is just an instantiation of god" concept of pantheism we see trotted out here by people like nagirrac is so dilute and meaningless that it can be made compatible with just about anything. Not just the religious "12 steps" used by AA. This brand of pantheism says so little, to the point of saying nothing. And if you are saying nothing, it will be compatible with everything. And you are. Saying nothing.
Essentially, with regard to pantheism, as I understand it, there is no real need for a concept of god, that is, no need to conceptualise it. What is referred to as god is arrived at through practices such as meditation - at least, this appears to be what is said about it in pantheistic philosophies, which predate christianity.
I haven't misrepresented you in the least. It is you who seems to be misrepresenting yourself by continually trotting out the line that the 5% efficacy rate is the same as undergoing no treatment. By repeating this you are implying (if even unbeknownst to yourself) that the efficacy of the 12-step program is equal to undergoing no treatment at all. The conflation in this figure has been repeatedly pointed out, yet you continue to trot it out. If you continue to do so, I will continue to highlight the conflation.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Or more to the point, if it is not the point I am making, then it might be better advised to stop acting like I did. But as I pointed out, misrepresenting me is your MO of choice in this thread.
I can not "stop" making a point I am not making. I can only continue to make the points I am.
The point I do make is that we simply lack any statistics whatsoever to support any assertion as to the positive efficacy of the AA 12 step program. Much less from anyone on this thread.
We are in agreement on one thing, we do lack the statistics to support the assertion, from a statistical point of view, of the efficacy of the 12-step program. Indeed, we appear to lack the statistical evidence for similar assertions about evidence based addiction treatment also.
Have studies not shown that homeopathy is ineffective? I'm not familiar with research into the area bcos I don't use homeopathy, but I presume they do. If they don't, then, by your line of reasoning we can't pass comments on it's efficacy without sufficient research.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Another statement that says absolutely nothing at all. It smacks of the same kind of rhetoric as a theist saying "I have no evidence for god, but you have no evidence there is NO god either". It is, in other words, a statement that simply ignores where the burden of proof lies. No one has to show AA is ineffective. The onus of evidence lies entirely and solely at the feet of those that say it IS effective.
You might as well tell me that the complete lack of any evidence that homeopathy performs better than placebo does not mean it isn't effective. You are simply saying nothing, but using as many words as possible to say it.
Far from being like the theist saying there is no evidence that god doesn't exist, I am simply saying that the lack of research into the area doesn't support the 5% point you continually trot out. The difference is, we can supposedly, research the efficacy of the 12-steps.
No, no, you are. The post you linked to was very much tongue in cheek; maybe that wasn't immediately obvious on an internet forum, but it was.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nope, because misrepresentation is NEITHER. It is just dishonest. So I am confusing nothing at all thanks. I see to have to spent more time in my replies to you picking your words out of my teeth, than making my own points, such is your need to misrepresent what I have said and done.
And I haven't put a single word in your mouth, anytime I have stated you have said something I have backed it up by referencing your posts.
It is quite possible to set out to demonstrate something is ineffectual, simply choosing a seemingly legitimate sample - people who attend AA meetings - instead of the correct sample - people who have worked the 12-steps. It may have been an error on my part, however, to suggest that this is what they did, however, people do conduct research with a certain motivation that can often objectivity.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »If scientists are working to show it to be INEFFECTIVE then the glaringly obvious point they have missed is not the one you suggest. It is that they should not be doing so at all. They need the onus of evidence and burden of proof explained to them just as much as some of the people on this thread do.
That is, however, a secondary point, the key point is that there is insufficient research into the area and the research that does exist appears to be flawed - including the research that leads to that figure of 5%.
That people can and do this is not in question, and in the context of whether or not AA is religious, this is a key point, because AA is more than just a dogmatic reading of the 12-steps; in fact, it isn't a dogmatic reading of the 12-steps at all. It is very much relaxed with regard to the question of god. To clarify, AA is made up of more than just the 12-steps; AA is as much, if not moreso, the members who go to meetings who interpret the 12-steps. In general, I would say that people are not forced into believing any particular conception of god, not least the one you think the 12-steps prescribes. People can, and do, pick and choose in that regard, which would mean that AA is not, necessarily religious.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »My point exactly. They are taking what is written clearly there, ignoring it, and putting in their own interpretation. That is what I have been saying all along.
With regard to the 12-steps, however, and the purely theoretical interpretation you are discussing, the 12-steps are not necessarily religious bcos there is a non-religious interpretation of the concept of god which requires no dilution of the steps, a conception which comes from philosophies which pre-date christianity.
I don't need to. I don't see the religiosity in the steps that you do. I have no religion but I can see the benefits in the practical steps and the spiritual (no necessarily what you understand by the term) practices.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Then by all means re-write the 12 steps to remove the religious nonsense and potentially damaging stuff, and produce a new version with the things you feel are beneficial and effective. And then measure the efficacy and effect of your new program.
Also, what potentially damaging stuff are you referring to?0 -
Advertisement
-
And such a paradigm requires no deletion or dilution of the steps, as has been outlined.
Says you, but the steps very clearly describe an interventionalist intentional agent and personal god. If you want to ignore that, great, but I will continue to call a spade a spade. If you want to switch one religion (christianity) out and replace it with another (pantheism) by ignoring this then go for it. But switching one religion for another still leaves the answer to the OPs question as a "yes".I haven't misrepresented you in the least.
Except the multiple times when you infact did, I called you on them, and are now denying it. I have pulled you up on it multiple times and I even linked one of them in my recent posts.It is you who seems to be misrepresenting yourself by continually trotting out the line that the 5% efficacy rate is the same as undergoing no treatment.
I am merely telling you what stats are actually available to us. What YOU want to make of them is up to you. But the fact is that stat is there. Released by AA themselves.Have studies not shown that homeopathy is ineffective?
That is not really how it works. We measure the efficacy of things in studies. We do not measure the non efficacy of things per se. The best you can do is launch a study into the efficacy of something and come up with no positive results.
Again the onus is on people claiming efficacy to substantiate that. No one needs to, or should be expected to, do research showing it is NOT effective. The best you can do is try to show it IS effective and fail.No, no, you are. The post you linked to was very much tongue in cheek
Again I am calling a spade a spade. If you want to misrepresent or caricature my position then do so but I will call you on it.AA is as much, if not moreso, the members who go to meetings who interpret the 12-steps.
Then you or others have their work cut out for them measuring the efficacy of the 12 steps. If, as you claim (though I am not buying it really) that you can simply go in and make the 12 steps be whatever you want them to be.... then how anyone can claim efficacy is beyond me. It would be like trying to measure the efficacy of a new pill, but rather than giving out perscriptions, simply let the patients take as many of the pills when they like, as often as they like, at intervals they like.
Good luck interpreting THAT data in the case of a new drug OR in the case of AA. To me, if the 12 steps can be just about whatever you want them to be, then AA is not offering ANYTHING AT ALL. The members are offering themselves something and AA is offering nothing more than a venue.Also, what potentially damaging stuff are you referring to?
Things like telling people they are powerless when they are not. I see potential for harm there.0 -
If a research study finds a treatment has a high refusal rate, or high drop-out rate (especially if there is a much lower refusal/drop-out rate in the controls), this should be taken into account when assessing the treatments efficacy or usefulness for patients in the real-world. I would consider it a red-flag if there is a high drop-out rate for a treatment as it might indicate some major problem with a treatment.
Do any of these studies test people who have worked through the 12-steps? Because it seems most just test people based on the attendance of meetings, which of course isn't the same as the complete 12-step program..
A treatment might have a high drop-out/refusal rate because it is difficult to do or implement for some reason, or it might be that it is a drug with a high degree of unacceptable side-effects (e.g. the side-effects might be worse than what they are supposed to treat, or the negative side effects don't outweigh the curative aspect of the treatment).
If a drug company tried to brush over a high refusal/drop-out rate and blame the patients for this they should be called on it, and the same with any other treatment.
It is not good enough to try to ignore a high refusal/drop-out rate and blame the addict. A high refusal or drop out rate can indicate that the programme is not acceptable or useful for many people. I know addiction is a bit different to a lot of other conditions, in that you probably need the person to be very motivated no matter what the treatment, but their motivation could be measured to some extent. If the addict is at a meeting voluntarily but still does not stick with the programme then it might indicate that AA is not for them.
You quoted Vaillant as saying
“effectiveness of AA has not been adequately
assessed”[63] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA… remains as elusive as ever"
For the first part, he had assessed it himself and found the results very poor (he thought the death-rate was "appalling" and also wrote "How can I, a clinician, reconcile my enthusiasm for treatment with such melancholy data?") As for the second part, so even an AA promoter, and a researcher in the field, admits that they don't have any evidence for its efficacy.
You talk about changing the steps, based on evidence. What parts would you change and based on what evidence?
I would be in favour of addicts having a choice, including AA if they want to try it, but I think any government bodies should not be promoting or paying for 12 step programmes because of the appalling results when it is actually tested, and also because of the religious element (as I feel the state should not be promoting religion/spirituality or whatever people want to call it).
I am very new to this, I just started reading up on it as I know someone with an addiction and I wanted ideas on how best to help (or not harm at least), and also I wanted an idea about what was out there in case they were looking for help. There are some interesting ideas out there. These are some of the ideas I have picked up but I am not sure exactly which I would agree most with.
I would have thought the peer-support-group element was a good idea, but some people think it is a bad idea as all the talk about alcohol/drugs /whatever the object of addiction only focuses the person's mind on the activity they are trying not to do. Some people can feel more tempted after a meeting. Some people also think it can be negative to try to do a programme of recovery while being in regular contact with other addicts, as it could reinforce the addictive thinking and behaviour (I think this is the idea anyway).
Jack Trimpey for example has argued the above if I have understood him correctly https://rational.org/index.php?id=1
Staunton Peele http://www.peele.net/ argues that there are aspects to the meetings that could be having a negative effect. If I have understood him correctly he thinks that constantly referring to oneself as an addict might be reinforcing the behaviour, and also the idea that it is a progressive illness and that the addict is not in control of the drinking/their behaviour might result in more binge drinking and worse relapses (there is some research evidence that people in AA binge drink more than those not in AA). Some of his ideas seem so counterintuitive (like the controlled drinking) that I find it hard to get my mind around them, but I think that is because I accepted so may of the ideas that AA promotes that it is weird trying to think of addiction in any other way.
The harms reduction approach would have the advantage of meeting the addict where they are at, and also possibly reducing the harm to society.
There is a list of non-AA programmes and groups here for anyone who is looking http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-alt_list.html Some of the online support might be accessible from here?
There are parts of the 12 steps that I think could be a problem (other than the God stuff). It is very negative in some ways, like the making a moral inventory that seems to comprise of writing out a list of faults and wrongdoings? Why not have a list of both positive and negative aspects of the person's personality and life?
I don't like the step on asking God to remove the defects of character, as again I think it is very negative (even leaving aside the weird woo God stuff). I don't think an addiction is a result of a defect of character so why bring it in? It is not that it is not good for people to try to improve themselves, but the overall impression of the 12 steps is a bit depressing and beating the person down and telling them how bad and powerless they are (seemingly so they can be lifted up by God/the group).
Apparently some (most?) addictions are fuelled by the person's lack of a sense of control over their lives. I think the 12 steps could add to this sense of lack of control, especially steps 1, 2, 3 6,7, 11.
There are aspects to the AA meetings that I would have considered positive before but now I would question them more. Some of the criticisms that were levelled at the Oxford Group could possibly also be levelled at AA. I haven't finished reading about the history of the Oxford Group but there were some very interesting critiques of them written at the time, including on things like the declaration of one's sins and the problems this can cause both for the confessor and audience (e.g. it can lead to people showing off about how bad they used to be, it can give the more "innocent" members ideas).
I had always thought as well that the making amends was a good thing. In some cases it would be, especially if you were still in regular contact with the person, but sometimes it is negative for the person on the receiving end of the apology. Some people almost force the apology and assume it is to be accepted. It can be upsetting for someone to be intruded upon if they have moved on and left that time in their life behind them. And the apology is in some ways more for the person apologising than for the benefit of the person on the receiving end. I know they are not supposed to do it if it would harm the person, but I think it could be difficult to decide in some cases what would be best, and also some people are too self-absorbed to approach this one sensitively. Personally I would probably appreciate if someone apologised to me if they had done something wrong, but I can see that some people would rather never be contacted by the person who had done them harm (this might depend on what type of abuse, and what effect it had had on their life).
0 -
Yes an interventionalist, intentional agent and personal god is one possible interpretation of the steps, but not the only one. A pantheistic interpretation is also possible, that doesn't require anything to be ignored; as has been outlined.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Says you, but the steps very clearly describe an interventionalist intentional agent and personal god. If you want to ignore that, great, but I will continue to call a spade a spade. If you want to switch one religion (christianity) out and replace it with another (pantheism) by ignoring this then go for it. But switching one religion for another still leaves the answer to the OPs question as a "yes".
Also, the idea of god as a "spirit of the universe" as mentioned in the book Alcoholics Anonymous and posted by Lon Dubh above, is not the interventionalist, intentional agent and personal god of christianity. It is much closer to the pantheistic idea of god. Again, this is why more than a superficial understanding would be beneficial - bear in mind the accusation of a superficial understanding is based on a lack of awareness of AA literatutre and a dogmatic interpretation of nothing more than the 12-steps, when there is more to AA philosophy than just the 12-steps (that is to say, it is not just repetition of an assertion to make a point, it is based on the evidence of your posting).
Further, pantheism isn't a religion, it is a non-religious philosophy, or at least, it can be.
And, to answer the OPs question, "Are AA meetings religious?"/"are they all based around religion?" then we should be talking about AA meetings and AA members. Are meetings religious? Are they all based around religion? No, they aren't, they are based on people sharing their stories of recovery, their problems in recovery and the things which help them in recovery.
Is the 12-step program religious? Again, we need to talk about more than just the 12-steps, bcos AA is more than just the 12-steps, it is as much it's members as anything else. So, are all AA members religious? No, they aren't.
Finally, are the 12-steps religious? Not necessarily. They can be interpreted in a religious manner, but there is an alternative that is not religious, despite the use of the word god. That alternative is pantheism, and it requires no ignoring of the any of the steps.
You mean the multiple times when you accused me of it but I reposted your actual comments and showed that I had, in fact, not misrepresented you. You seem to be misrepresenting yourself, or at least, oblivious to what your posts imply.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except the multiple times when you infact did, I called you on them, and are now denying it. I have pulled you up on it multiple times and I even linked one of them in my recent posts.
As has been clarified, the post you linked to was a parody of your position, not a claim that that was your actual position.
No, you are misrepresenting what the stats actually tell us. You say that the 12-step approach has the same efficacy as no treatment, yet that is not what the stats tell us.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am merely telling you what stats are actually available to us. What YOU want to make of them is up to you. But the fact is that stat is there. Released by AA themselves.
The fact that the stat comes from AA themselves doesn't change what the stat actually tells us. Plus, I wouldn't put too much faith in the research conducted by AA. I think they have demonstrated that they might not be the most reliable source of credible research.
I would also be interested in how they come up with that 5% figure. The line that appears to be trotted out with the figure, is that the dropout rate includes people who go to one meeting and never return. I would be interested to see how this is verified, how is this measured? How do they know that people don't actually return at a later date? Many people in AA would actually leave and come back.
To all intents and purposes, are they not very similar? If clinical trials are conducted on a medicine and the medicine is not shown to have any effect, is the conclusion not that it is ineffective, to all intents and purposes?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That is not really how it works. We measure the efficacy of things in studies. We do not measure the non efficacy of things per se. The best you can do is launch a study into the efficacy of something and come up with no positive results.
Again the onus is on people claiming efficacy to substantiate that. No one needs to, or should be expected to, do research showing it is NOT effective. The best you can do is try to show it IS effective and fail.
Please do, but be sure to call it correctly. It was a parody, not a claim that that was your actual position.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again I am calling a spade a spade. If you want to misrepresent or caricature my position then do so but I will call you on it.
It's not a question of allowing people to make the 12-steps be whatever they want, it's allowing people to make one aspect of the 12-steps be however they understand it - a provision that is made in the steps themselves. The practical actions of the steps remain the same; people still conduct the self-examination, people still make amends, practice meditation and help others.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Then you or others have their work cut out for them measuring the efficacy of the 12 steps. If, as you claim (though I am not buying it really) that you can simply go in and make the 12 steps be whatever you want them to be.... then how anyone can claim efficacy is beyond me. It would be like trying to measure the efficacy of a new pill, but rather than giving out perscriptions, simply let the patients take as many of the pills when they like, as often as they like, at intervals they like.
Good luck interpreting THAT data in the case of a new drug OR in the case of AA. To me, if the 12 steps can be just about whatever you want them to be, then AA is not offering ANYTHING AT ALL. The members are offering themselves something and AA is offering nothing more than a venue.
To more accurately apply your analogy above, it is like conducting a medical trial on a drug, giving people precise prescriptions, but saying that they can develop their own understanding of how the drug actually works.
Some people might choose to believe that there is a team of miniature scientists inside the pill who cure their ailment, others might learn how the chemicals interact with the body to eradicate the disease, while others might just be content with thinking, there is something in the pill that seems to cure their illness.
This has been explained before. People are told that they are powerless over their addiction, not life in general. In fact, people are taught quite the opposite of powerlessness, they are taught that it is they that has to do the work of recovery, they that have to take responsibility for their actions and make amends. What they are told, is that if they consume alcohol, then they lose their power to make wise decisions. The 12-steps is about empowering people to make healthy decisions in recovery. The powerlessness is over the addiction.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Things like telling people they are powerless when they are not. I see potential for harm there.
Just for the record, this is an example of how you can continually address something yet ignore it. You have raised this point before, it has been explained, but you continue to raise it.0 -
Yes an interventionalist, intentional agent and personal god is one possible interpretation of the steps
Of course it is. Because that is _exactly_ what they describe. Which is my point all along. If you want to ignore bits of it to make another interpretation, then have at it. If you want to replace one religion with another then the answer to the OPs question is still "yes". If you want to pretend it is not a religion, you can have at that too. A lot of fantasy goes into your approach. But then again nothing but fantasy goes into religion anyway.You mean the multiple times when you accused me of it but I reposted your actual comments and showed that I had, in fact, not misrepresented you.
Except yes you did. And I explained at some length why. Your comment that my solution to addiction was to "get a hobby" was a gross, blatant, and completely dishonest misrepresentation of everything I have been writing on this thread. It is, alas, your MO of choice for some time now. And now you are flip flopping between claiming it was satire.... and claiming it was fact. You can not even decide which it was.No, you are misrepresenting what the stats actually tell us. You say that the 12-step approach has the same efficacy as no treatment, yet that is not what the stats tell us.
No, I am saying that the figure leaked happens to be the same figure as we expect from no treatment at all. Again you are lying about what I have been claiming. I am merely pointing out the coincidence between the figures.I wouldn't put too much faith in the research conducted by AA. I think they have demonstrated that they might not be the most reliable source of credible research.
I do not but any credibility into their figures. I would expect them to artificially inflate them and attempt to massage them. That the came up with such a pathetic figure as 5% however, despite my suspicions that they might artificially inflate them, does strike me as comical however.To all intents and purposes, are they not very similar?
It comes down to an inability to prove negatives and the like. It is difficult and in some cases impossible to evidence the non efficacy of a product. What we engage in is attempting through the methodologies of epidemiology to show the efficacy of a product. If we fail to do so after analysis and meta-analysis we then assume the product is in fact without efficacy.
So "to all intents and purposes" yes you are essentially right. To the lay man this is likely enough understanding to operate under. But to those actually involved in the processes of researching the efficacy of products like this, the difference is subtle but important.Please do, but be sure to call it correctly. It was a parody, not a claim that that was your actual position.
And now you have flopped back to claiming it was parady. While above you had flopped back to claiming you showed my "actual posts" and that you were not misrepresenting me.
Pick one and run with it. But simply adhere to my request to drop this MO of misrepresenting me and reply to the positions I actually do espouse.This has been explained before. People are told that they are powerless over their addiction, not life in general.
My point exactly. And I think that is potentially harmful because I do not believe they are "powerless" over it. At all. I think they are the sole one who DOES have power over it. They might need help, support, advice and assistance. But at the end of the day the ONLY person who has power over it is them. Short of us, of course, tying them to a chair and simply disallowing them the ability to indulge it.
That they are powerless over it is another in that long list of entirely baseless assertions that this thread has been punctuated with. Yet rather than substantiate the assertion, you simply repeat your fatuous and false claim I have been "ignoring" things when I have done no such thing.0 -
One such reason that there might be such a high drop-out rate is the number of people who are coerced into attending meetings. According to the Orange Papers website, around 2/3 of people are their against their will. While I would agree with your point below, that people should not be coerced into attending AA, I don't think it can be seen as a failure of the program when those people choose to leave.If a research study finds a treatment has a high refusal rate, or high drop-out rate (especially if there is a much lower refusal/drop-out rate in the controls), this should be taken into account when assessing the treatments efficacy or usefulness for patients in the real-world. I would consider it a red-flag if there is a high drop-out rate for a treatment as it might indicate some major problem with a treatment.
A treatment might have a high drop-out/refusal rate because it is difficult to do or implement for some reason, or it might be that it is a drug with a high degree of unacceptable side-effects (e.g. the side-effects might be worse than what they are supposed to treat, or the negative side effects don't outweigh the curative aspect of the treatment).
If a drug company tried to brush over a high refusal/drop-out rate and blame the patients for this they should be called on it, and the same with any other treatment.
It is not good enough to try to ignore a high refusal/drop-out rate and blame the addict. A high refusal or drop out rate can indicate that the programme is not acceptable or useful for many people. I know addiction is a bit different to a lot of other conditions, in that you probably need the person to be very motivated no matter what the treatment, but their motivation could be measured to some extent. If the addict is at a meeting voluntarily but still does not stick with the programme then it might indicate that AA is not for them.
I was just looking up the research by Vaillant and came across a site called Green Papers[/quote] which is a direct response to the information on the site "Orange Papers". If you haven't checked it out, it might be worth a look, just in the interest of balance.You quoted Vaillant as saying
For the first part, he had assessed it himself and found the results very poor (he thought the death-rate was "appalling" and also wrote "How can I, a clinician, reconcile my enthusiasm for treatment with such melancholy data?") As for the second part, so even an AA promoter, and a researcher in the field, admits that they don't have any evidence for its efficacy.
On the site he references the study by Vaillant and highlights that the study by Vaillant, didn't actually test the 12-step model, per se. Instead it tested people who received clinical treatment, versus the control group. People had access to a number of clinical facilities and were encouraged to attend AA meetings, but not everyone went. It also doesn't say whether people actually worked through the 12-steps. Again, this is a major issue when it comes to evaluating the 12-step model. Most studies seem to conflate attending meetings with working through the steps.
[the Vaillant study] was a study of patients who came to a clinic in distress and then had a health network made available to them. AA attendance was encouraged but was optional and was followed to varying degrees by the study subjects. At the end of 8 years, only 32 patients had attended AA meetings 100 or more times, for a mean of 600 visits. (Note that over 8 years, 100 meetings averages out to once a month, and 600 meetings, to every 5 days.) Those who did attend AA had higher recovery rates.
On the results of the study
Pages from Vaillants book[/quote]Results that Orange must have forgotten to mention (Vaillant 1995, p 187 - 197) were that increased AA attendance was associated with a higher rate of sobriety, and AA helped many alcoholics who would otherwise been predicted not to stop drinking. For example, half of the stable remissions, but only two of the chronic alcoholics, had made 300 or more visits to AA (Vaillant 1995, p 196). So contrary to Orange's statements, AA attendance was associated with positive results.
The point about the lack of research showing the efficacy of AA is agreed. I'm not sure myself, perhaps you might be, but are there any studies showing the efficacy of any treatment programs? The author of the green papers makes a good point, I think. What we are dealing with is social studies, not physics, or clinical drug trials. The subject area doesn't lend itself, easily, to research. We might have to accept that certain things are not easily quantifiable - not to say that they aren't, but that they are not easy to quantify. Of course, the lack of research into the field doesn't imply that the 12-step model is ineffective, it simply highlights the need for more research.
There are a number of quotes on the site from different researchers, Vaillant included, which are interesting. I'll just post two of them here.
Edwards
[Why are randomized studies of AA difficult? Use Quakerism as an example.] "Randomizing people to attendance or non-attendance at a Quaker meeting would not be good science, and would be unlikely to tell us much about the impact of Quakerism on the lives of those people who are non-randomly drawn towards it... Up to the present, science has not found a research approach to overcome the Quaker-meeting conundrum." (2002, p 116-7.)American Psychiatric Association
"The effectiveness of AA, per se, has not been evaluated in randomized studies. However, other sources of information provide growing support for the utility of AA and 12-step-oriented treatments as well as the efficacy of professional therapies such as TSF [12-step facilitation] that are aimed at motivating patients to participate in AA. In addition, a large number of studies have documented that greater AA participation is associated with greater rates of abstinence from alcohol as well as with better drinking outcomes. Thus, most patients should be encouraged to attend at least several AA meetings to ascertain the appropriateness and utility of AA in helping them remain alcohol free."
- Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Substance Use Disorders, p 98-99. (PDF, 2.2 MB)
I would agree that people should not be forced to attend AA, but often times it is given as a means of avoiding prison time. People should be given the choice, but the question, what are the alternatives? Certain clinical programs will have entry requirements and might not be open to accepting people remanded by the courts.I would be in favour of addicts having a choice, including AA if they want to try it, but I think any government bodies should not be promoting or paying for 12 step programmes because of the appalling results when it is actually tested, and also because of the religious element (as I feel the state should not be promoting religion/spirituality or whatever people want to call it).
It should also be highlighted that the 12-step model doesn't necessarily have appalling results, bcos the research appears to be highly questionable. At best, it appears as if there is no data either way.
But, that is not a fault that lies with the program, rather with the courts services.
I'm not overly familiar with the alternatives myself. I know someone who has gone through CBT with a certain degree of success - they are in recovery but their overall quality of life doesn't seem to have improved too much (maybe that's just by my standards). My mother has studied addiction and my sister works in that field but I've never really quizzed them about it. My sister has spoken highly enough of CBT.I am very new to this, I just started reading up on it as I know someone with an addiction and I wanted ideas on how best to help (or not harm at least), and also I wanted an idea about what was out there in case they were looking for help. There are some interesting ideas out there. These are some of the ideas I have picked up but I am not sure exactly which I would agree most with.
That certainly is a danger. There is a slogan in AA that says, "stick with the winners", which encourages people to find those people who have longer term sobriety and listen to what they say. In meetings it is interesting to hear different people talk. Often times the newer people will talk about using while the people who have longer sobriety will mention their drinking but will talk more about their daily lives, the struggles they have and how the program helps them deal with that. It is kind of a two sides of the coin scenario. It can be beneficial for addicts to hear others who have been through similar situations and feelings, to whom they can relate, and to hear how to deal with those situations. People can learn strategies for coping with situations that might otherwise see them relapse.I would have thought the peer-support-group element was a good idea, but some people think it is a bad idea as all the talk about alcohol/drugs /whatever the object of addiction only focuses the person's mind on the activity they are trying not to do. Some people can feel more tempted after a meeting. Some people also think it can be negative to try to do a programme of recovery while being in regular contact with other addicts, as it could reinforce the addictive thinking and behaviour (I think this is the idea anyway).
Jack Trimpey for example has argued the above if I have understood him correctly https://rational.org/index.php?id=1
I never liked the part of saying hi..I'm an addict/alcoholic. Partly bcos I had spent sometime learning more about buddhism and the idea of applying labels to ourselves that don't represent who we truly are. For a while I would just say hi, I'm "roosh", other times I would say, hi...I drink alcoholically, then I learned not to get too attached to the label and went back to saying I'm an addict.Staunton Peele http://www.peele.net/ argues that there are aspects to the meetings that could be having a negative effect. If I have understood him correctly he thinks that constantly referring to oneself as an addict might be reinforcing the behaviour, and also the idea that it is a progressive illness and that the addict is not in control of the drinking/their behaviour might result in more binge drinking and worse relapses (there is some research evidence that people in AA binge drink more than those not in AA). Some of his ideas seem so counterintuitive (like the controlled drinking) that I find it hard to get my mind around them, but I think that is because I accepted so may of the ideas that AA promotes that it is weird trying to think of addiction in any other way.
I'm not sure where that convention came from, possibly the original members, but people say it more out of habit than it being an actual part of the program.
I've heard my sister and mother mention that before, but don't know much about it.The harms reduction approach would have the advantage of meeting the addict where they are at, and also possibly reducing the harm to society.
When I did it, I was told to list the people that I held resentments against, without thinking about why, just people I resented. Then I was told to list why I held the resentment, what they had done. Then I had to examine why the action caused the resentment i.e. what aspect of me did it affect e.g. financially, emotionally, etc. After doing that I was then told to be honest, and see if I had played any role in the situation. Did I do anything to cause the person to commit that action, or did I do anything afterwards that fuelled the resentment. That self-examination alone caused a great many resentments to just fall away, bcos I could see how silly they were. It was from that list of things where I had contributed to the resentments that I had my list of amends to make.There are parts of the 12 steps that I think could be a problem (other than the God stuff). It is very negative in some ways, like the making a moral inventory that seems to comprise of writing out a list of faults and wrongdoings? Why not have a list of both positive and negative aspects of the person's personality and life?
So, it isn't a case of writing down what's wrong about you, it's first looking at your resentments, which can cause subconscious stress and which can fuel the addictive behaviour, and then taking responsibility for your own actions.
The language is quite subtle. Step 6 says that we were ready to have our defects of character removed, and let's face it, alcoholism is a defect of character.I don't like the step on asking God to remove the defects of character, as again I think it is very negative (even leaving aside the weird woo God stuff). I don't think an addiction is a result of a defect of character so why bring it in? It is not that it is not good for people to try to improve themselves, but the overall impression of the 12 steps is a bit depressing and beating the person down and telling them how bad and powerless they are (seemingly so they can be lifted up by God/the group).
It might be some vaunted thing not to "question a mans character", bcos it seems as though you are questioning the very essence of who he is, but all you are really doing is questioning his thinking.
Wanton self destruction and harming others is not a strength of character. Continuing to engage in addictive behaviour even though it is ruining your life is faulty thinking, but that's all it is, faulty. It can be mended.
The 7th step asks for god to remove "shortcomings". Who, addict or not, would not admit to having shortcomings?
There does seem to be some perception abounding that the 12-step approach is somehow about beating the addict down and telling them that they are completely powerless, but I would suggest going to an open meeting and seeing for yourself if this is the case. People usually go to AA when they are already beaten, AA attemps to lift them up and give them strength to beat their addiction.
What AA says is that the alcoholic is powerless over alcohol, as indeed we all are. When anyone of us drinks, we cannot control the effects that alcohol has. It reacts with our bodies and gets us drunk, regardless of how much we might will it not to. For the addict, however, the effects might be more severe. They might lose control more than other people, they might drink more, and they might not be able to control their behaviour. Most people have done things they regret after drinking, for the addict, it just seems to happen with greater regularity and increasing severity.
Where some people might have the ability to make a wise decision to stop drinking, often times the addict won't; for whatever reason - I personally think that learned behaviour is a big part for many alcoholics. But an alcoholic can no more control the effects of alcohol than anyone can.
Possibly, such behaviours can often be about control, but I would imagine it is less straight forward than that.Apparently some (most?) addictions are fuelled by the person's lack of a sense of control over their lives. I think the 12 steps could add to this sense of lack of control, especially steps 1, 2, 3 6,7, 11.
Again though, the steps are about empowering addicts. People are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. It is they that have to do the practical steps and it is the practical steps which gives rise to the benefits.
If it really were just about a sense of control, then 2 minutes pondering the world and how little we control would mean that there was no way back for the addict.
With regard to the specific steps:
1 - the powerlessness is over alcohol; as mentioned, none of us can control the effects of alcohol, least of all the addict it appears.
2 - if the addict could restore themselves to sanity, then it would be a simple matter of making the decision and going from there. The power greater than ourselves is simply an acceptance that we cannot do it on our own. Even attending a counsellor is a power greater than ourselves. They have studied a vast body of knowledge and can help to impart that to us. The knowledge they have isn't something they just have themselves, they are drawing on countless people who have gone before them. Society as a whole is informing them and this helps us. Essentially, it is like acknowledging that we are just a tiny cog in a huge engine.
3 - I'm sure we're all familiar with the little voice in our heads that often tells us its ok to do things, or berates us when we do something wrong. That is part of the thinking mind, but it is not always healthy thought processes and it is just a part of what drives our behaviour. For the addict, this voice might tell them, "go on, have a drink, you've been off it for a month, sure you can manage your drinking now, just try it, sure you won't know that you can't manage it unless you try it". Turning the will and life over to god is attempting to not listen to that voice.
6 - this partly depends on what your interpretation of god is, so I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself. Essentially, this means we were ready to move on through the steps, to do the work that would give us the results.
7 - this depends on your interpretation of god.
11 - this also depends on your interpretation of god. For me, it is essentially a case of practising meditation.
People don't work through the steps in the meetings, this is done outside of meetings. People don't confess their wrongdoings in this manner, they do it in private with one other person, whoever they choose.There are aspects to the AA meetings that I would have considered positive before but now I would question them more. Some of the criticisms that were levelled at the Oxford Group could possibly also be levelled at AA. I haven't finished reading about the history of the Oxford Group but there were some very interesting critiques of them written at the time, including on things like the declaration of one's sins and the problems this can cause both for the confessor and audience (e.g. it can lead to people showing off about how bad they used to be, it can give the more "innocent" members ideas).
These are all legitimate concerns and caution has to be exercised when making amends. As you mention, it says to make amends only when it wouldn't cause harm to others. This can, indeed, be a difficult thing to judge, and some people are encouraged to wait until they are ready or even until they are sure they should. Bear in mind, if receiving an apology could be that painful to the receiver, the person who is giving the apology is probably going through much more and will probably avoid it for as long as they can.I had always thought as well that the making amends was a good thing. In some cases it would be, especially if you were still in regular contact with the person, but sometimes it is negative for the person on the receiving end of the apology. Some people almost force the apology and assume it is to be accepted. It can be upsetting for someone to be intruded upon if they have moved on and left that time in their life behind them. And the apology is in some ways more for the person apologising than for the benefit of the person on the receiving end. I know they are not supposed to do it if it would harm the person, but I think it could be difficult to decide in some cases what would be best, and also some people are too self-absorbed to approach this one sensitively. Personally I would probably appreciate if someone apologised to me if they had done something wrong, but I can see that some people would rather never be contacted by the person who had done them harm (this might depend on what type of abuse, and what effect it had had on their life).
It's true too that some people might expect automatic forgiveness, or that they might be too self-absorbed when delivering it. Again, these are all things that have to be considered. If a person gives the apology and it gets thrown back in their face, then that is just another thing they have to work through in recovery. It's one of the hardships of life that they will have to face in recovery.
But such considerations shouldn't be taken as justification for not making amends to anyone. There will be amends which are much easier to make, and often a person can start with those. It's not always easy to offer an apology and admit that you were wrong. With these "smaller" amends, often people find that others are very forgiving and this has the effect of humbling them as opposed to making them self-absorbed.
It is a tremendously freeing thing to make amends to someone. And while the primary beneficiary might be the addict, it can be powerful for the recipient also.0 -
Yes an interventionalist, intentional agent and personal god is one possible interpretation of the steps, but not the only one. A pantheistic interpretation is also possible, that doesn't require anything to be ignored; as has been outlined.
Also, the idea of god as a "spirit of the universe" as mentioned in the book Alcoholics Anonymous and posted by Lon Dubh above, is not the interventionalist, intentional agent and personal god of christianity. It is much closer to the pantheistic idea of god. Again, this is why more than a superficial understanding would be beneficial - bear in mind the accusation of a superficial understanding is based on a lack of awareness of AA literatutre and a dogmatic interpretation of nothing more than the 12-steps, when there is more to AA philosophy than just the 12-steps (that is to say, it is not just repetition of an assertion to make a point, it is based on the evidence of your posting).
{...}
How are steps 3 and 7 compatible with pantheism, without treating them as symbolic?12steps wrote:3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
7. Humbly asked Him (God as we understood Him) to remove our shortcomings0 -
Hahaha I do enjoy the way you choose single lines from a response and ignore the rest, and are yet, seemingly, oblivious even to the line you quote. What I said was:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Of course it is. Because that is _exactly_ what they describe. Which is my point all along. If you want to ignore bits of it to make another interpretation, then have at it. If you want to replace one religion with another then the answer to the OPs question is still "yes". If you want to pretend it is not a religion, you can have at that too. A lot of fantasy goes into your approach. But then again nothing but fantasy goes into religion anyway.
It is one, possible interpretation. Which wasn't your point all along. Your point all along is that it is the only possible interpretation. However, as I have outlined, there is an alternative interpretation, which doesn't require and deleting or diluting of the 12-steps.Yes an interventionalist, intentional agent and personal god is one possible interpretation of the steps
You have failed to specifically address the points being raised. You have chosen, instead, to repeat an unsubstantiated assertion that parts of the 12-steps must be ignored - after it was, repeatedly, explained how and why they don't.
If you want to try to pretend that pantheism is a religion, feel free my dear. It is, at most, a spiritual philosophy.
Just an aside, the 12-steps could also be describing Allah, which isn't a "personal" god, bcos such an anthropomorphic conception of god is considered blasphemous. So, the 12-steps doesn't necessarily describe a "personal" god. All we need to do then is to look at how the intentionality or intervention of god could potentially manifest itself. We could go down that route, but there is no need to, bcos it's already been outlined.
Please try to keep up. The post you are referring to here, was a satire; it was claimed that that was your actual position.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except yes you did. And I explained at some length why. Your comment that my solution to addiction was to "get a hobby" was a gross, blatant, and completely dishonest misrepresentation of everything I have been writing on this thread. It is, alas, your MO of choice for some time now. And now you are flip flopping between claiming it was satire.... and claiming it was fact. You can not even decide which it was.
The other times you accused me of misrepresenting you I re-posted your comments and highlighted how I had not actually misrepresented you.
And I'm not even sure what you mean by "claiming it was a fact". That statement makes no sense in this context. I think you might have seen the words ", in fact," in my post and typed nonsense.
Careful Nozz, you'll take someones eye out with all that flailing.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No, I am saying that the figure leaked happens to be the same figure as we expect from no treatment at all. Again you are lying about what I have been claiming. I am merely pointing out the coincidence between the figures.
That wasn't what you were doing at all.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Especially given the efficacy of their program (5%) is exactly the same efficacy as no program/treatment at all.
C'mon Nozz, if you can't be honest with me, at least try to be honest with yourself.
I know, and the temptation, when such a damning figure is reported from them themselves is to not question it's reliability. Easy mistake to make.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not but any credibility into their figures. I would expect them to artificially inflate them and attempt to massage them. That the came up with such a pathetic figure as 5% however, despite my suspicions that they might artificially inflate them, does strike me as comical however.
Explained above.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And now you have flopped back to claiming it was parady. While above you had flopped back to claiming you showed my "actual posts" and that you were not misrepresenting me.
Pick one and run with it. But simply adhere to my request to drop this MO of misrepresenting me and reply to the positions I actually do espouse.
We are all powerless over alcohol. When we imbibe alcohol it reacts with our bodies in a way that we do not control. If you drink 10 pints then it will have an affect on your mind and body, regardless of how much you try to control it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »My point exactly. And I think that is potentially harmful because I do not believe they are "powerless" over it. At all. I think they are the sole one who DOES have power over it. They might need help, support, advice and assistance. But at the end of the day the ONLY person who has power over it is them. Short of us, of course, tying them to a chair and simply disallowing them the ability to indulge it.
That they are powerless over it is another in that long list of entirely baseless assertions that this thread has been punctuated with. Yet rather than substantiate the assertion, you simply repeat your fatuous and false claim I have been "ignoring" things when I have done no such thing.
Abstaining from alcohol is not exercising power over it, it's quite the opposite. It's acknowledging the power it has over you.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »How are steps 3 and 7 compatible with pantheism, without treating them as symbolic?
Our thoughts manifests themselves in our minds, often as a voice. That voice can often drive our behaviour; it's the voice that says, "5 more minutes and I'll get up", "I'll quit smoking tomorrow", etc. For the addict that voice might say, "right, you just need to manage your drinking; just bring out enough money for X no. of pints; don't drink on a sunday; etc.", or after a binge saying "right you have to stop", but come friday saying "I've learned my lesson". This is what often drives our behaviour, it is our "will". It is the attempt to control situations and people that we ultimately cannot control - "it better be sunny tomorrow, I need to get that job done so I can get money to pay my debts".
Turning your will over to god means making an effort to not listen to those thoughts and not to spend time worrying about the things we can't control.
In a spiritual pantheistic philosophy, that voice in our heads is what is referred to as "the self". Our level of attachment to it is what determines how much we act on the thoughts. Breaking this attachment reveals our true self, what pantheistic philosophy says is connected to god - breaking it tends to make us more compassionate and loving. Our behaviour then comes from this mindset as opposed to a "self" obsessed mindset.
Asking god to remove defects of character can take the form of the meditation practice of Loving Kindness. Instead of saying "may I be happy, may I be well...." you can say, "May I be free from [insert defect of character].0 -
Our thoughts manifests themselves in our minds, often as a voice. That voice can often drive our behaviour; it's the voice that says, "5 more minutes and I'll get up", "I'll quit smoking tomorrow", etc. For the addict that voice might say, "right, you just need to manage your drinking; just bring out enough money for X no. of pints; don't drink on a sunday; etc.", or after a binge saying "right you have to stop", but come friday saying "I've learned my lesson". This is what often drives our behaviour, it is our "will". It is the attempt to control situations and people that we ultimately cannot control - "it better be sunny tomorrow, I need to get that job done so I can get money to pay my debts".
Turning your will over to god means making an effort to not listen to those thoughts and not to spend time worrying about the things we can't control.
In a spiritual pantheistic philosophy, that voice in our heads is what is referred to as "the self". Our level of attachment to it is what determines how much we act on the thoughts. Breaking this attachment reveals our true self, what pantheistic philosophy says is connected to god - breaking it tends to make us more compassionate and loving. Our behaviour then comes from this mindset as opposed to a "self" obsessed mindset.
Asking god to remove defects of character can take the form of the meditation practice of Loving Kindness. Instead of saying "may I be happy, may I be well...." you can say, "May I be free from [insert defect of character].
None of that makes sense in the context of the 12 steps though, where the self is powerless.0 -
I don't followgaynorvader wrote: »None of that makes sense in the context of the 12 steps though, where the self is powerless.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I don't really follow that either, tbh.gaynorvader wrote: »You are claiming that the self is part of god, therefore pantheism is compatible with 12 steps as the self is the higher power than yourself that's powerless that removes your addiction.
But, "the self" isn't part of god. "the self" is the conditioned mind, the set of erroneous beliefs we hold about ourselves and that we are subconsciously attached to, which drives so much of our behaviour. Breaking that subconscious attachment means that our behaviour is no longer driven by this "self"; our behaviour is driven by our true nature which is innately more compassionate, less selfish, and more loving.0 -
I don't really follow that either, tbh.
But, "the self" isn't part of god. "the self" is the conditioned mind, the set of erroneous beliefs we hold about ourselves and that we are subconsciously attached to, which drives so much of our behaviour.
But pantheism states everything is part of god, does it not?Breaking that subconscious attachment means that our behaviour is no longer driven by this "self"; our behaviour is driven by our true nature which is innately more compassionate, less selfish, and more loving.
So how is that compatible with asking God to remove them or turning our will over to God? Sounds like another way of saying "just quit".0 -
"The self" isn't necessarily a thing, "the self" is a term in spiritual philosophy which refers to the set of erroneous beliefs that we have about ourselves and which drives our behaviour. It is the set of internalised beliefs that we develop from our family, our friends, and society as a whole.gaynorvader wrote: »But pantheism states everything is part of god, does it not?
It might be the person with low self-esteem who thinks that they are not good enough; the shy person who has a fear of putting themselves out there bcos they think everyone else will think their stupid; it's the girl who thinks she is not pretty enough; it's the people who, through personal experiences, have internalised incorrect beliefs about themselves, often negative, which manifest in self-destructive behaviours.
It's these internalised beliefs which often drive addictive behaviour, or more pointedly, the subconscious attachment to those beliefs, or, in other words, how much we listen to, believe, and follow those thoughts.
That is what the concept of "the self" refers to. Spiritual practices are focused on examining these beliefs and developing awareness of them. Through these practices the subconscious attachment can be broken and the incorrect beliefs about ourselves lost. Once the incorrect beliefs about who/what we are are shed, then we are left with our "true nature". It is this "true nature" that is said to be one with the nature of god; our actions become more loving, compassionate, caring, wise, etc. At least, this is what the pantheistic philosophies which pre-date (and perhaps influenced) christianity taught.
The desire to control our environment, to try and control outcomes, to try and control people, is often a manifestation of this "self"; ultimately, to try and control the things we can't. Turning the will and the life over to god is just a case of trying to let go of the things we can't control and accept them. It's also a case of trying not to act on those thoughts which lead to destructive behaviour. The will of the alcohilic or "the self", is the little voice in the head that says, "go on have a drink". Turning the will over mans trying not to act on that.gaynorvader wrote: »So how is that compatible with asking God to remove them or turning our will over to God? Sounds like another way of saying "just quit".
The "prayer", "grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference" is essentially it in a nutshell. Like many people, alcoholics (perhaps moreso) try to control things in their life to stop their house of cards falling down. Turning.
It's not just a case of saying "just quit", it's a case of trying to create awareness that the addict doesn't have to act on that thought - whereas before they would have acted on it subconsciously. The other steps help to develop this awareness and break the subconscious attachment.
It might be worth highlighting that the step actually says made a decision to. This just means that the addict is ready to move along with the steps. Making the decision to isn't the same as turning the will over. Working through the steps is the practical means of turning the will over - again, they just help to raise awareness and break the subconscious attachment.
Asking god to remove shortcomings, again, this can be viewed in terms of the practice of loving kindness, where we say "may I be free from [insert defect of character]".0 -
you choose single lines from a response and ignore the rest
I do not such thing, but as usual you seem to like accusing others of doing what only you are doing. What I do is quote enough of the post I am replying to so that the target knows generally where I am directing my reply. There is no law in this universe that says I need to quote everything to reply to it.
The only one doing any ignoring here is you. Such as when you ignore the blatant presence in the 12 steps of a description of a personal, intentional interventionalist god.
That you can make the 12 steps compatible with something else by ignoring this is no surprise. That you can make it compatible with something like pantheism is also no surprise given pantheism appears to be so dilute as to be compatible with anything. When we hear lines from some pantheists like "Everything is just an expression of god".... a line which to me says so much that it says nothing at all.... there is very little you can NOT make it compatible with.Please try to keep up. The post you are referring to here, was a satire; it was claimed that that was your actual position.
The only one failing to keep up is you, which is why you resorted to misrepresenting me rather than replying to my positions. The post I am referring to was a blatant misrepresentation of my position on this thread.
Then you tried to back pedal into claiming it was satire when it was no such thing. It was a total straw man of my views.
Then you try to claim you proved this actually was my position.
Make up your mind son and start replying to my posts rather than this campaign of misrepresentation of them you feel compelled to engage in. You'll take someones eye out with all that flailing.That wasn't what you were doing at all.
Except it was but of course once again pretending I am saying other than I am actually saying is part of your ongoing campaign of misrepresentation.C'mon Nozz, if you can't be honest with me, at least try to be honest with yourself.
Being perfectly honest here. Alas you are ignoring what I am saying and claiming I say/mean things I do not. The honesty from my side is fine. Try some on your side.We are all powerless over alcohol.
Nope. We are not. The power and choice lies with no one BUT ourselves. No one chooses to drink it but us. We are anything BUT powerless over it.0 -
Again, that is one possible interpretation. A pantheistic interpretation is another possible interpretation. Not bcos parts of the 12-steps are ignored, but bcos pantheism is fully compatible with the 12-steps.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The only one doing any ignoring here is you. Such as when you ignore the blatant presence in the 12 steps of a description of a personal, intentional interventionalist god.
It's not a case of making them compatible with pantheism, or vice versa. Pantheistic philosophy pre-dates the Judeo-Christian philosophy by thousands of years, in some cases. It's simply a case that panthesitic philosophy is fully compatible with the 12-steps bcos it is fully compatible with the 12-steps. Nothing needs to be ignored or added. So this particular concept of god actually pre-dates the personal, interventionalist god you are talking about.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That you can make the 12 steps compatible with something else by ignoring this is no surprise. That you can make it compatible with something like pantheism is also no surprise given pantheism appears to be so dilute as to be compatible with anything. When we hear lines from some pantheists like "Everything is just an expression of god".... a line which to me says so much that it says nothing at all.... there is very little you can NOT make it compatible with.
Also, as has been pointed out. In the AA book, one of the founding members talks about belief in a "spirit of the universe". This idea of a "spirit of the universe" is not the christian interpretation of god; it is not the personal, interventionalist god you talk of. But you seem to want to ignore this point bcos it doesn't fit with your argument.
OK, I'll try to spell it out a little clearer.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The only one failing to keep up is you, which is why you resorted to misrepresenting me rather than replying to my positions. The post I am referring to was a blatant misrepresentation of my position on this thread.
Then you tried to back pedal into claiming it was satire when it was no such thing. It was a total straw man of my views.
Then you try to claim you proved this actually was my position.
Make up your mind son and start replying to my posts rather than this campaign of misrepresentation of them you feel compelled to engage in. You'll take someones eye out with all that flailing.
You have accused me on a number of occasions of misrepresenting you. On one of those occasions you quoted my post. The post you quoted was a satire of your position. I never claimed it was a true representation of your position and so, there was no back pedalling.
On the other occasions where you accused me, I quoted your posts and showed that you had said what you were claiming you hadn't.
Hopefully you are a little clearer on the issue now.
Again, it you who is misrepresenting yourself, or at least trying to in an attempt to back pedal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except it was but of course once again pretending I am saying other than I am actually saying is part of your ongoing campaign of misrepresentation.
You had been making very definitive statements such as:
Here you say that the efficacy of the 12-step program has the same efficacy as undergoing no treatment at all. This is very definitive and doesn't leave any wiggle room - flailing room yes, wiggle room, no.Nozz wrote:Especially given the efficacy of their program (5%) is exactly the same efficacy as no program/treatment at all.
Now you are trying to back-track and say that you were just highlighting the co-incidence between the 2 figures, as opposed to stating categorically - as you clearly were - that the efficacy of the 12-step program is the same as undergoing no treatment at all.nozz wrote:I am merely pointing out the coincidence between the figures.
Nope, the problem is I am paying close attention to what you are saying and claiming, as has been outlined abovenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Being perfectly honest here. Alas you are ignoring what I am saying and claiming I say/mean things I do not. The honesty from my side is fine. Try some on your side.
A number of points on this. Firstly, choosing to avoid something isn't an expression of your power over something, if anything it is an expression of the power it has over you. The same is true with alcohol. Secondly, once we imbibe alcohol, we have absolutely no control over how it reacts with our bodies. The chemical reaction occurs regardless of our conscious desires one way or the other. That is, we are powerless over it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nope. We are not. The power and choice lies with no one BUT ourselves. No one chooses to drink it but us. We are anything BUT powerless over it.
Another thing, which I have touched on, which is pertinent here, is the idea of the "self", or our "self"; this is pertinent to the idea of making the choice to drink. Our behaviour is very much driven by our thinking and a lot of our thinking is sub-conscious. So much of our actions are learned behaviours driven by internalised messages. These sub-conscious thoughts are not thoughts that we control, they arise - as most thoughts do - in reaction to experiences, or even just out of the blue. The issue lies in the level of attachment that we have to them. The more attached we are, the more they determine our behaviour.
Again, the example might be the person who has low self-esteem, who has internalised the message that they are not good enough and that other people don't like them. This might result in the behaviour of being more quiet and not standing up for their own rights, allowing other people to take advantage of them, resulting in them becoming unhappy or depressed. This is not necessarily a conscious choice, it is behaviour driven by an attachment to sub-conscious thinking, beliefs that they have internalised. An addicts actions and behaviours are similarly driven. The addictive behaviour is a symptom of the underlying problem, it is a coping mechanism driven by subconscious thinking which the addict doesn't control.
This is where things like the 12-steps come in. The 12-steps helps to make the addict aware of such thinking and work on lessening the attachment to it and thereby not engage in the addictive behaviour. Meditation can be particularly effective in this regard.0 -
Unfortunately, I can't edit my last post to include this, so I have to write a separate post. It's just on the point about "misrepresentation". Just to confirm that the post you quoted was indeed a parody:did I mention "take up a hobby"?
EDIT: don't worry, there's a serious post on the way; I just felt like a giggle at the idea that "the key to giving up alcohol" is to take up a hobby.0 -
Again, that is one possible interpretation.
Yes and by ignoring the fact that the steps describe a personal intentional interventionalist god you can make another interpretation. How nice for you. That does not change a thing I have been saying.It's not a case of making them compatible with pantheism, or vice versa.
Except it is. By simply ignoring the bits that you do not like.But you seem to want to ignore this point bcos it doesn't fit with your argument.
Once again the only person doing any ignoring whatsoever here is you.You have accused me on a number of occasions of misrepresenting you.
Yes. Because you have done. Numerous times.The post you quoted was a satire of your position. I never claimed it was a true representation of your position and so, there was no back pedalling.
Except you did claim it was my position and that you had shown many times it was my position.Again, it you who is misrepresenting yourself, or at least trying to in an attempt to back pedal.
Once again, you claiming I said something I did not is not me representing me. It is you misrepresenting me. Me clarifying what I said in order to remove the representation is not a back pedal, it is a clarification.flailing room yes, wiggle room, no.
The only one flailing is you. Once again the figure that these people leaked was 5% and the simple fact is that that figure happens to be the same as we would expect from no treatment at all.
If you do not like that fact then continue to flail about around it, but the fact stands.A number of points on this. Firstly, choosing to avoid something isn't an expression of your power over something
Except yes it is. If your body is attempting to make you engage in something and you exercise your will over those desire and simply decide not to engage in it, then you have expressed your power over it.Secondly, once we imbibe alcohol, we have absolutely no control over how it reacts with our bodies.
Which is a point so pedantically true that it has no use whatsoever. Replace "alcohol" with "food" for example. When you eat you have no control over how it reacts. You simply gotta eat. If this is what you mean by "powerless over alcohol" then you are saying something so dilute and useless that you are essentially saying nothing of use at all. Which, it seems, is nothing new.0 -
I give up!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yes and by ignoring the fact that the steps describe a personal intentional interventionalist god you can make another interpretation. How nice for you. That does not change a thing I have been saying.
Except it is. By simply ignoring the bits that you do not like.
Once again the only person doing any ignoring whatsoever here is you.
Yes. Because you have done. Numerous times.
Except you did claim it was my position and that you had shown many times it was my position.
Once again, you claiming I said something I did not is not me representing me. It is you misrepresenting me. Me clarifying what I said in order to remove the representation is not a back pedal, it is a clarification.
The only one flailing is you. Once again the figure that these people leaked was 5% and the simple fact is that that figure happens to be the same as we would expect from no treatment at all.
If you do not like that fact then continue to flail about around it, but the fact stands.
Except yes it is. If your body is attempting to make you engage in something and you exercise your will over those desire and simply decide not to engage in it, then you have expressed your power over it.
Which is a point so pedantically true that it has no use whatsoever. Replace "alcohol" with "food" for example. When you eat you have no control over how it reacts. You simply gotta eat. If this is what you mean by "powerless over alcohol" then you are saying something so dilute and useless that you are essentially saying nothing of use at all. Which, it seems, is nothing new.
You win!0 -
Advertisement
-
I give up!
You win!
Win? I did not even realize there was a competition here. The only person who "wins" on any internet forum debate is the one who comes away learning something new, or replacing erroneous thought with new correct and informed thought.
In this sense I do not think I have "won" anything here to date.0
Advertisement