A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

sopretty

Nozz - you might find this video interesting, in terms of the debate around whether it is a disease or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hz6-2NwRzE&feature=share&noredirect=1

Turtwig

Hi Amazingfun,


Le posts below are not up to the standards of discussion expected in this forum. They aren't helpful or actively contributing to the discussion in anyway. Cease in this style of posting or you won't be posting in this thread for much longer.

Amazingfun wrote: »

[


:pac: "Demand" all you like, lol......let me know how that works out for you!

Amazingfun wrote: »

I never loved him, but a brilliant post otherwise, lol

Amazingfun wrote: »

I sincerely hope many more AA members come by and read this thread for the Lolz, and there is nothing more amusing than seeing non-AA members feign "horror" at how they imagine AA works (or doesn't, according to them) , lol! Thanks for the laughs boyz

@Others, it's probably a good thing that the posts are far too long for us mods to read them all entirely:p Just a reminder to disagree/agree with folks politely.

kylith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And why is that "important"? Why do we have to tell people they are powerless over alcohol and they have to turn it over to a "higher power". Especially if they sit there hoping this "higher power" will do something when there is often no reason to think it will.... given the lack of any and ALL data to even suggest a "god" exists?

The fact seems to me to be that the ONLY person who has power to not drink, is the drinker. Yes they need support of friends, family, and other people who have the same issue. I would not deny any of that. But at the end of the day the power is THEIRS. Not their friends. Not their family. Not their alcoholic peers. And certainly not some imaginary unsubstantiated god entity in the sky.

This would be my perspective too. If someone has given up drink then that is fantastic, but unless this 'higher power' follows them into offies and physically stops them buying booze then the only power is with the person who has had the strength to make the decision not to drink.

sopretty

Also, the following is a link to AA's 12 traditions. The long form of them (directly under the shorter form), might be more explanatory. There is furthermore a book entitled 12 Steps and 12 traditions, which has a chapter devoted to each step and tradition (though I don't think this is available for free online, it can be purchased online).

Anyway - here's the link to the traditions. It explains a little more about the structure of AA and how it should be 'managed' or organised so to speak.
http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_appendicei.cfm

As you'll see in there, they suggest a rotating secretary. Usually on a 12 week basis.

I know you are going to pick apart at least 2 of the these traditions Nozz, as they refer to God lol, so I'll await those posts with anticipation!

Also, just to reiterate, though I might be providing links to AA material, and while I have had periods of sobriety in AA, I am not in any way speaking on behalf of AA! Apart from any AA material I might quote or cite, anything else I say is just my own impression and opinion.

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

Just on the stats discussion - I think the figure of 5% may be off the mark .
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-alcoholics-anonymous-work/?page=2

The devil as always is in the detail. Here are two responses showing the deeply flawed data used to draw the conclusion of that article:

SciAm user SteveinOG wrote:

Hey, wait a minute!
If 40% of AA attendees drop out in the first year, then the program as already failed for 40%. You can't just arbitrarily exclude these people from the survey. The 16-year abstinence for 67% of the remaining people is actually only 40.2% of the original set, NOT a 67% overall success rate. This 40% success is a much lower rate than the 56% for therapy alone.
"For those attending at least 27 weeks of AA meetings during the first year...." If you exclude those who did NOT attend at least 27 weeks, you are fudging the data. The program has failed for those people. They must be included in the statistics for the conclusions to be valid.
My opinion: people drink in excess due to loneliness, boredom and/or escapism. The body evenually aclimates to the alchohol, and physical addiction sets in. A dedicated close friend or close relative can help by eliminating the underlying causes. AA groups and therapists are just weak substitutes.

SciAm user Neil Cameron wrote:

It gets worse. That 40% who drop out within a year, is 40% of people who actually became MEMBERS.
AA data shows that those who become members make up only 10% of the total number who attend their first meeting. 90% of people walk out of their first meeting, never to return again after that single meeting. So that 40%, is 40% of 10% (i.e. 4%) of the total.
AA has never researched that 90% and has no data for them. They are the control against which AA data should be tested. If memory serves correctly, Harvard has studied that 90%.
to quote the article above: "Because the study lacked a group of people who received no treatment, however, it does not reveal whether any of the methods are superior to leaving people to try to stop drinking on their own".
I recall from the Harvard study that the efficacy of the treatment programs was on a par with that of sitting on your sofa watching TV as a means of attaining sobriety. The common factor in all successes being the desire to quit.
The Harvard analysis also showed that approximately 1 in 3 AA chapters actually scored LOWER successes than those not in the program. Which indicates that some chapters MIGHT HAVE achieved better success by sending participants home to their sofas & tv's. Although that elevated failure rate MAY HAVE BEEN be due to the fact that some chapters are host to higher numbers who are attending in compliance with court orders and therefore NOT there because they want to be there.
If you want to quit, quit!

You see the numbers are actually only a tiny, and highly skewed*, sample of what AA should be studying, and the selected sample massively massages the numbers in a way which flatters the AA. The study cited in the article is bad science, plain and simple.

*By selecting members who've attended over half of the meetings in a year there are two immediate and glaring flaws:
1) The sample is not a random subsection of AA users.
2) The sample has been selected on the basis of those with the strongest will to get off the drink, i.e. those who are most likely to get off the drink.
There are others, but I'm not in the mood for thinking them through. The two above are big enough to junk the study as is.

Corkgirl210

Taken from big book..

You don't have to believe in anything - its a spiritual program...


Chapter 4
WE AGNOSTICS
I
n the preceding
chapters you have learned
something of alcoholism. We hope we have
made clear the distinction between the alcoholic and
the non-alcoholic. If, when you honestly want to, you
find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you
have little control over the amount you take, you are
probably alcoholic. If that be the case, you may be
suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experi-
ence will conquer.
To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an
experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is
means disaster, especially if he is an alcoholic of the
hopeless variety. To be doomed to an alcoholic death
or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy
alternatives to face.
But it isn’t so difficult. About half our original
fellowship were of exactly that type. At fi
rst some of
us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we
were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to
face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life
—or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you.
But cheer up, something like half of us thought we
were atheists or agnostics. Our experience shows that
you need not be disconcerted.

gaynorvader

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

Taken from big book..

You don't have to believe in anything - its a spiritual program...


Chapter 4
WE AGNOSTICS
I
n the preceding
chapters you have learned
something of alcoholism. We hope we have
made clear the distinction between the alcoholic and
the non-alcoholic. If, when you honestly want to, you
find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you
have little control over the amount you take, you are
probably alcoholic. If that be the case, you may be
suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experi-
ence will conquer.
To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an
experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is
means disaster, especially if he is an alcoholic of the
hopeless variety. To be doomed to an alcoholic death
or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy
alternatives to face.
But it isn’t so difficult. About half our original
fellowship were of exactly that type. At fi
rst some of
us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we
were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to
face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life
—or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you.
But cheer up, something like half of us thought we
were atheists or agnostics. Our experience shows that
you need not be disconcerted.

OED wrote:

Spiritual
1.relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things

2.relating to religion or religious belief

Religion
1.the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

Honestly, the religion definition seems spot on for AA. You could argue that it is spiritual, except that it tends to focus on a higher power meaning that it's probably a better match to the second definition.

marienbad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Very hard to say. The 5% figure is generally based on AAs own internal statistics. What little of them were actually made public. The problem with many studies of AA so far however is they have been poorly controlled with poor methodologies. Some studies for example ONLY look at the success rates in long term members. However that is a massage of the figures as long term members are by default going to show better results than any other set.



And that is the reason for some of the problems I have mentioned in numerous posts now. The fact there is no central body implementing, updating, studying and policing a "best practice" policy means that people are engaged in nothing more than setting up an ad hoc group, with ad hoc processes and ideas, intended to address a very real world problem. While their heart is more often than not going to be firmly in the right place doing this.... the question is how good an idea is that? Sending untrained people with no real plan into help with genuine psychological and other problems is irresponsible. At best.



I am stuck for time now so I only very very quickly read over that article. But the only mention of "WHO" I can find in it in no way suggests they class it as a disease.

When I finished reading I then did a search in the document for "World" "WHO" and "disease" and I still can not find any mention of WHO classifying it as such.

Have I missed something or did you perhaps provide the wrong link? I thought WHO referred to is as a "Dependency" not a disease. Check ICD-10 for example.

However I should point out that _who_ is calling it a disease is not important. _Why_ they are doing so is. If WHO or anyone else wants to classify it as a disease then I want to know A) what definition and attributes are they using to class things as a disease and then which attributes of alcohol dependency they found matched their definition.

For example one of the exports rolled out by Penn and Teller in the video earlier in this thread pointed out that Alcoholism matches none of the requirements for being a "disease" they we generally operate on.



Another reason to have a constantly improved and updated set of "Best Practices" to roll out and enforce. Then individuals can not simply throw their opinion at vulnerable people who are, in some cases, likely to take the word of group leaders and so forth at these meetings as gospel or credible.

A certain amount of trust is invested in group leaders of these kind of things by the people who attend. Whether intentional or not on behalf of the receiver or giver. So it is irresponsible and even dangerous to put yourself in such a position of trust and start espousing such opinions without first checking if your opinions are valid, helpful, or dangerous.

On the question of a disease - here is the shrinks view from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dependence. I will try to find the WHO one and post it later

On the idea that anyone can set up a meeting and say what they like. I have never heard of it,but I would assume it is no more that other organisations particularly in Ireland where anyone can call themselves a councillor or an institute . The only breakaways I have seen in AA are those where someone feels that the group is not open enough or honest enough to truly help others and sets up a group which quickly fold and merges back into the mainstream. In all my years in AA I have come across two such cases.

On the idea of group leaders and abuse of trust by such leaders - there are no such leaders. There is a misunderstanding of how meetings work (or don't as may be the case). That vulnerable individuals have been preyed on by others I have no doubt as to say otherwise would be utter foolishness , but is that not the case in every human entity ? Speaking for myself I have seen very little of it.

On the idea of telling people they are powerless etc- well we don't as it is a programme of attraction and not compulsion , but in effect ,certainly on a one to one we probably do. This is not a bad thing imo.The idea that this reduces that person somehow is not correct (again imo) . To believe that one can do this unaided or by choice alone is just a variation of that old cliché ''all he/she needs is a good kick up the arse '' There are some conditions such as some forms of depression and addiction that cannot be overcome unaided.

On the religious aspect - it most definitely is if you want it to be and the language would seem to indicate so, but it is not so if you don't want it to be. Is this a contradiction ? Possibly,probably . But society is full of such contradictions- America is a secular republic and yet has In God We Trust on the dollar bill . Such is life.

Sorry for yet another long post but just one final point , it is the absence of joined up thinking by the powers that be that make AA,Simon Community,St. Vincent de Paul etc such a vital part of society and this at a point in history where to live in the modern western world is to live in the most enlightened prosperous age in our history. Should the question not be why are such entities still functioning ?

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

On the question of a disease - here is the shrinks view from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dependence. I will try to find the WHO one and post it later

According to the DSM (version five published less than a year ago), grieving for your parents or loved one is a psychological disease.

Frankly using the DSM to argue that something is a disease is akin to using the bible to determine the age of the earth.

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to the DSM (version five published less than a year ago), grieving for your parents or loved one is a psychological disease.

Frankly using the DSM to argue that something is a disease is akin to using the bible to determine the age of the earth.

Fine , it is not my area .I will find the WHO link so. Do you think it is a disease ?

I am sometimes perplexed at these definitions anyway and how they are arrived at and does it make a difference . AA wants it to be a disease I presume simply because it helps remove the stigma and that not a bad thing.

Personally I don't care one way or the other

sopretty

Brian - I'm finding it hard to figure out what exactly the motivation behind your various posts here are.
On the one hand, you dismiss AA and recommend GP/psychiatrist.
Then you dismiss a psychiatrist as being a faith healer or something.
You attempt to debunk statistics, when the statistics published were never lies. If I had breast cancer, and went to one consultation with the breast clinic and was asked back for a follow up, but did not attend, can you really say that, 'well, that breast clinic is crap because some people don't even come back after the first appointment'. No, you can't.
You don't see alcoholism as a disease - even if it's defined as such.
You appear to reason that someone who is off the drink is no longer alcoholic.
I really have no idea what point or points you are trying to make apart from to just argue against everything!

sopretty

Basically Brian, on the one hand you are favouring modern medicine over AA. Then when modern medicine is quoted etc., you dismiss that also!
What exactly, are you recommending?
That all alcoholics should JUST QUIT!? Lol, you'd make millions if you could put that forward as a treatment!
The fact that alcoholics simply can NOT just quit, is what defines them as alcoholics to me.

sopretty

As for the argument against alcoholics being 'powerless', please watch that link I posted and then come back to me. I, along with a lot of alcoholics had every reason to JUST STOP DRINKING!!!! But, guess what, after days, weeks, months of sobriety, the brain would black out, and I would be in the off-license and back home with 12 cans of beer, with the lid opened on the beer, almost in some sort of daze. My conscious brain would be telling me 'NO - YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T, SHOULDN'T, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU STAND TO LOSE', but the part of my brain which would 'believe' or 'listen to' that argument was completely and utterly switched off. It's the only way I can describe it.
Believe me, I have lost a lot. I am not going to go into exactly what I lost. But, there is no doubt in my mind, that on some occasions, I am COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY POWERLESS over the choice to drink or not.
I have tried everything available to me (with limited financial capability). Good God, I actually asked a priest whether I might need an exorcism one time, such was the compulsion to drink in me! He assured me I wasn't possessed, and I went to the off-license.
I appreciate that it is impossible for non-alcoholics to appreciate the extreme nature of addiction, but, aside from periods in either a medical hospital or psychiatric hospital, the only times I have stayed sober have been when attending regular AA meetings, remaining in regular contact through the phone with members and while trying to practise the program of AA.
While I am not sober now, to me, the only long-term solution is AA. I could not even begin to try to live with my head, if I was sober and not attending AA. I would be certifiable within a month.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

As for the argument against alcoholics being 'powerless', please watch that link I posted and then come back to me. I, along with a lot of alcoholics had every reason to JUST STOP DRINKING!!!! But, guess what, after days, weeks, months of sobriety, the brain would black out, and I would be in the off-license and back home with 12 cans of beer, with the lid opened on the beer, almost in some sort of daze. My conscious brain would be telling me 'NO - YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T, SHOULDN'T, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU STAND TO LOSE', but the part of my brain which would 'believe' or 'listen to' that argument was completely and utterly switched off. It's the only way I can describe it.
Believe me, I have lost a lot. I am not going to go into exactly what I lost. But, there is no doubt in my mind, that on some occasions, I am COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY POWERLESS over the choice to drink or not.
I have tried everything available to me (with limited financial capability). Good God, I actually asked a priest whether I might need an exorcism one time, such was the compulsion to drink in me! He assured me I wasn't possessed, and I went to the off-license.
I appreciate that it is impossible for non-alcoholics to appreciate the extreme nature of addiction, but, aside from periods in either a medical hospital or psychiatric hospital, the only times I have stayed sober have been when attending regular AA meetings, remaining in regular contact through the phone with members and while trying to practise the program of AA.
While I am not sober now, to me, the only long-term solution is AA. I could not even begin to try to live with my head, if I was sober and not attending AA. I would be certifiable within a month.

I would say you're not powerless and never were. But you did need help and support. Even going to AA required power on your part, I bet it wasn't always easy making the effort to go to AA every week. Don't short sell yourself, you may not have been powerful enough to overcome alcohol dependency on your own, but that doesn't make you powerless.

sopretty

Gaynor - I'm not powerless. I am powerless over my addiction however. I truly believe that. Not because AA told me so. But because, there is no other rational reason why I would ever still be drinking, or why I would ever have relapsed, if I had the power of rational thought and thinking. That goes out the window on me when I get a compulsion to drink. Logic, reason, everything goes out the window when that compulsion to drink kicks in. I am powerless over alcohol. End of.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Gaynor - I'm not powerless. I am powerless over my addiction however. I truly believe that. Not because AA told me so. But because, there is no other rational reason why I would ever still be drinking, or why I would ever have relapsed, if I had the power of rational thought and thinking. That goes out the window on me when I get a compulsion to drink. Logic, reason, everything goes out the window when that compulsion to drink kicks in. I am powerless over alcohol. End of.

I do, respectfully, disagree with you, but I don't want to argue further as it's getting way too personal. Thanks for your frankness and honesty.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

I would say you're not powerless and never were. But you did need help and support. Even going to AA required power on your part, I bet it wasn't always easy making the effort to go to AA every week. Don't short sell yourself, you may not have been powerful enough to overcome alcohol dependency on your own, but that doesn't make you powerless.

AA dos'nt say anyone is powerless as defined above just powerless over alcohol.

And this is the fundamental misunderstanding in this discussion

mathepac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... Therefore, yes, I have a right to demand that the AA change its modus operandi to be based on best evidence and practise, not the current devotion it has to god and other woo.

As an non-member of a private, self-funding and self-sufficient organisation, you don't have the right, the standing or the capability to make demands of AA.

And as has been already proven by reference to their own documentation, AA is not a religious organisation. It may have religious members of various denominations and no allegiance at all amongst its membership but AA itself is not religious.

One interpretation used in AA for "GOD" is simply

• Good
• Orderly
• Direction.

How it Works

Formulate a plan for recovery, execute it and using the experience, strength and hope of longer-term members, refine it in the light of your own progress.

If you are concerned about low standards and very poor safety / survival statistics in publicly funded organisations, then could I suggest you admit your powerlessness over changing or influencing AA to do things your way, and switch your attentions to the HSE where you might, if you are a citizen and a voter, be able to effect some changes through the political process. Based on their numbers, hidden / fudged for who knows how long, the public needs protection from their dangerous inefficiencies.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to the DSM (version five published less than a year ago), grieving for your parents or loved one is a psychological disease.

Frankly using the DSM to argue that something is a disease is akin to using the bible to determine the age of the earth.

But it's a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the perfect specialist publication to resolve all arguments about psychological and psychiatric conditions / disorders / diseases / semantic niceties.

That aside, anyone who blindly follows the DSM without committing the "Cautionary Statement" (page xxxvii in my DSM IV TR) to memory is misusing the book. Rather like trying to understand and comment on AA without attending 12-step meetings and using only a brief article written at several removes from AA as an unimpeachable reference.

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

Fine , it is not my area .I will find the WHO link so. Do you think it is a disease ?

It's a disease the same way Miss Piggy is a living breathing being. I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of alcaholism but mislabelling it as a disease is doing nobody any good (apart from those making money out if it) and a lot of people serious harm.

mathepac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of alcaholism but mislabelling it as a disease is doing nobody any good ... and a lot of people serious harm.

Evidence, numbers, stats that AA (or anyone else) is doing "a lot of people serious harm" by classifying alcoholism as a disease? Scientific American again - a headline maybe?

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It's a disease the same way Miss Piggy is a living breathing being. I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of alcaholism but mislabelling it as a disease is doing nobody any good (apart from those making money out if it) and a lot of people serious harm.

How would you classify it ? I am not hung up on its classification and I ask just out of interest. In many ways I see it as similar to depression.

I don't know of anyone who has made money out of AA. Alcohol and Alcoholism sure- billions - but AA ,not a penny.

celticcrash

On this powerless thing. Why is it so hard for some people not to understand a powerless over a substance. People all over can find themselves powerless over a great number of things, floods, famine, war, disease, crime, accidents an so on.
It just shows the illusion of power. Yes we can buy a house 10 meters above see level, fatten our back accounts, buy the best health insurance, but any number of things can go wrong to show us that were not all that powerful.
Powerful things collapse all the time. The booming Irish economy was only an illusion. All the great empires eventually die off.

If I put the substance of alcohol into my system, the chemistry in my brain changes. Right away my thinking changes. Delusion sets in straight away.
I could go missing from my family because I went on a drink binge for a certain number of hours or days. Not only will I lie to my family and friends about causes of this drinking but I will fully justify the cause to external circumstances and fully believe in my own lies. (delusion)
Thats the power of alcohol when consumed.
If you were never addicted than you will find it hard to understand the feeling of powerless over this.
That is why some people with critical reasonable minds find this hard to fathom. Some people just cant see beyond the words or read between the lines. (It just does not make sense)
If it does not make sense to them, than they attack it.

I find this thread an attack on AA. This is not a discussion or debate, its more of lets have a lash off the alcoholics. We have been kind enough to come on to discuss a topic. AA has been accused of all kinds of bull with clever wording. More of a clever ambush that's not really working.
Big ego`s who don`t want to understand, but like to hear themselves babble on and on.
The ambush might have worked if the big egos had agreed on some points.
But no, the big ego`s showed their true nature by disagreeing on everything. And that shows that this thread is hiding under a disguise of a discussion. I wont back into this thread again.

For anyone else who looks in. The big ego`s will say, OH he ran away with the ball like a little kid. But remember the ball is only an illusion.
THERE IS NO BALL ON THIS THREAD.

gaynorvader

celticcrash wrote: »

On this powerless thing. Why is it so hard for some people not to understand a powerless over a substance. People all over can find themselves powerless over a great number of things, floods, famine, war, disease, crime, accidents an so on.
It just shows the illusion of power. Yes we can buy a house 10 meters above see level, fatten our back accounts, buy the best health insurance, but any number of things can go wrong to show us that were not all that powerful.
Powerful things collapse all the time. The booming Irish economy was only an illusion. All the great empires eventually die off.

If I put the substance of alcohol into my system, the chemistry in my brain changes. Right away my thinking changes. Delusion sets in straight away.
I could go missing from my family because I went on a drink binge for a certain number of hours or days. Not only will I lie to my family and friends about causes of this drinking but I will fully justify the cause to external circumstances and fully believe in my own lies. (delusion)
Thats the power of alcohol when consumed.
If you were never addicted than you will find it hard to understand the feeling of powerless over this.
That is why some people with critical reasonable minds find this hard to fathom. Some people just cant see beyond the words or read between the lines. (It just does not make sense)
If it does not make sense to them, than they attack it.

I find this thread an attack on AA. This is not a discussion or debate, its more of lets have a lash off the alcoholics. We have been kind enough to come on to discuss a topic. AA has been accused of all kinds of bull with clever wording. More of a clever ambush that's not really working.
Big ego`s who don`t want to understand, but like to hear themselves babble on and on.
The ambush might have worked if the big egos had agreed on some points.
But no, the big ego`s showed their true nature by disagreeing on everything. And that shows that this thread is hiding under a disguise of a discussion. I wont back into this thread again.

For anyone else who looks in. The big ego`s will say, OH he ran away with the ball like a little kid. But remember the ball is only an illusion.
THERE IS NO BALL ON THIS THREAD.

I can understand alcohol having power over you, but I can't fathom how you can say you have no power over it if you've quit. Clearly somewhere along the way you made a concious decision to exercise what power you had over it to go to AA, or whatever method you used to quit. Just because you are not as powerful as something does not make you powerless, just less powerful.

As for this being an attack on AA, for some people maybe it is. I certainly have not intended to attack it. I have found some of the AA members to be attacking everyone else and refusing to engage in discussion. Instead falling back to "you're not an alcoholic, you have no idea what you're talking about" or "AA's not religious because I keep saying so" and refusing to engage in any discussion, preferring to just snipe at other posters.

mathepac

gaynorvader wrote: »

... I have found some of the AA members to be attacking everyone else and refusing to engage in discussion. ...

In the interests of accuracy, which specific AA members are you referring to who have behaved in this way?

gaynorvader wrote: »

... or "AA's not religious because I keep saying so" ...

Speaking for myself I've said repeatedly AA is not religious because AA says so in its documentation.

gaynorvader wrote: »

... and refusing to engage in any discussion, preferring to just snipe at other posters.

Sounds like you might be describing trolling behaviour. If it's true the mods will certainly take action.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet mentioning it does not make it true, any more than repetition of it does. I referred directly to the text, therefore how can I be ignoring it? That is like accusing someone of ignoring you when they have been talking right to you all day. It makes no sense.

You mention in it but then you go on to ignore it because the basis of your point is the "actual text" of the 12 steps, despite the fact that "as we understood him" is part of the actual text. This is coupled with a preconceived and imagined idea of the dynamics of 12-step groups.

To amend your analogy, it is like being told that "Jon" is in the next room, and that "Jon" has many nicknames that people refer to him as. Indeed, you can see a person in the next room but you refuse to believe that it is "Jon" or that he has many nicknames because on the sign-in sheet under name is "Jonathon" and under nickname is "you choose" - both of which you read out loud.

You base your refusal to accept the claims about the persons nicknames by going on to state that the actual sign in sheet states that his name is Jonathon, while ignoring what it says under "nickname". It's further based on your previous experience with anyone called "Jonathon"; they weren't very open to having nicknames so you have a preconceived idea about the "Jonathon" in the room and imagine that he must be like all the other "Jonathon's" you've met. Even though you've read the sign in sheet out loud, you still go on to ignore the fact that on the sign-in sheet, under nickname, it says "you choose".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The "actual text" very clearly not only uses the word "god" but mentions directly some very blatantly theistic attributes of this "god".

Now you can claim people take or leave that as they wish, but you are saying nothing about AA then, and everything about the capability people have to simply pretend.

It seems that you are basing this all on a very, very superficial understanding of AA and 12-step programs. It seems to be limited to a partially, selective reading of the 12-steps - ignoring, or dismissing if you prefer, the part about "of our own understanding". The "Big Book" is a big part of helping people to understand the "actual text" of the 12 steps - probably bcos the treatment of addiction cannot simply be boiled down to the number of words in the 12-steps; although such things are helpful, there is a deeper understanding required. For example, when it says to do a searching and fearless moral inventory, what precisely does that mean? The AA book expands on this as well as the idea of "God, as we understand him".

So taking a selective interpretation of little more than the text of the 12-steps is not sufficient.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is the history here in your opinion by the way? Who actually invented the 12 steps and what did they draw on while doing it? What were the influences and idea and inputs and resources that were drawn on to construct them?

They were adapted from the steps of a christian group, I think there were something like 6 or 8 before that. From what I can remember, a fellow alcoholic of one of the founders of AA approached him to show him that he was in recovery and that it was from following the steps of the christian group.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. Firstly because it is false. The ONLY person who has the power to say no to alcohol is the person themselves. Yes they might need support, help, friends, information, life style changes and much more.... but at the end of the day it comes down to them, their choice, their own power. They are the exact opposite of powerless.

And as psychologists would point out if you tell people they can not succeed on their own, this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You convince a man he is going to die tomorrow, he will likely find a way to make it happen. If you convince people they can not succeed even if they try.... they will likely find a way to fail.

Again, this points to an uninformed opinion as to what 12-step programs actually teach. 12-step programs teach people that they are powerless over their addiction - over alcohol in AA. That is, when an addict starts using they lose the power over themselves, they can't seem to control their behaviour. Indeed, this is what leads an addict to require treatment in the first place. 12-step programs are actually about helping an addict to develop the personal strength to avoid taking the first drink or drug.

So, you are right, the ONLY person who has the power to say no to alcohol is the person themselves. Yes they might need support, help, friends, information, life style changes and much more.... but at the end of the day it comes down to them, their choice, their own power. They are the exact opposite of powerless. This is precisely what 12-step programs teach, you seem to be confusing this with saying that an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol. The reason that addicts have to avoid certain substances is because they can't seem to have control over their using, that is, they are powerless over them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not just me stating it, I am being told it by many people who go to AA who post on forums. I am being told that many AA meetings are simply throwing out half the 12 step approach and just running the meeting whatever way they like.

In fact based on this people recommend that if you do not like one AA meeting, then try another one and another one until you find one that works for you. Why? Because they are actually all different enough to each other than if you have 10 of them, you might love the 11th.

How could they be following a best practice guideline if their implementations are THAT diverse and unregulated and uncontrolled?

Again, this points to a grossly uninformed opinion of what 12-step meetings are about and how 12-step programs work.

Firstly, people don't work through the 12-steps in the meetings, the meetings people attend are open support groups, where people go to discuss their experiences in addiction and recovery and to give support to one another. It isn't a question of "best practices" that people might not like a particular meeting it's down to the dynamics of any such support group, they may just not relate to the others in the group. For example, someone coming from a disadvantaged area in a city, where violence is a big problem, might not be able to relate to a 60yr old farmer who lives on his own, miles from anyone - in the beginning at least. So it might be better for both to seek out a group with whom they have more in common.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also what is "best practice" in the world of epidemiology? It means constantly monitoring the efficacy of your treatment, and updating the program to reflect the data that comes in. Information literally saves lives.

Yet AA not only do not do this, but actively resist any attempt to.
...
So yes, I strongly feel that AA are not following any kind of best practice guidelines.

Are you saying that AA doesn't follow their own best practices or don't follow the best practices for treating addiction? If it is the latter, I'm just wondering what the best practices for treating addiction are, and how does AA deviate from those?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further this penchant for calling alcoholism a disease without really qualifying that means they can not really be building a good treatment. The first step in treating any condition is to identify the cause of the condition. If you have a mineral deficiency then treating this with an anti biotic is clearly not going to work. Yet you could present with the EXACT SAME symptoms and have a bacterial infection, so mineral supplements are not going to help either.

You have to identify the root conditions actually being treated before you can formulate treatments. Simply calling it a disease for the sake of it and proceeding from there is not a good way to start.

What does the medical profession say about addiction and the causes of it, as well as the best practices for treating it?


12-step programs treat addiction as a "spiritual disease". Now, of course a persons preconceptions of what spirituality is will entirely determine how they interpret that.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

I can understand alcohol having power over you, but I can't fathom how you can say you have no power over it if you've quit. Clearly somewhere along the way you made a concious decision to exercise what power you had over it to go to AA, or whatever method you used to quit. Just because you are not as powerful as something does not make you powerless, just less powerful.

As for this being an attack on AA, for some people maybe it is. I certainly have not intended to attack it. I have found some of the AA members to be attacking everyone else and refusing to engage in discussion. Instead falling back to "you're not an alcoholic, you have no idea what you're talking about" or "AA's not religious because I keep saying so" and refusing to engage in any discussion, preferring to just snipe at other posters.

Apologies for jumping in, I just read this post and it sounded like a similar point I replied to with nozz - hopefully this is relevant.


It might be helpful to say that avoiding something doesn't mean that you have power over it, indeed, the reason for avoiding it in the first place is because of that lack of power.

The issue is when alcohol is taken, some people just can't seem to control their drinking. Where some people can go out for a few pints, the alcoholic might find that they go out with that intention but end up drinking til all hours of the morning, even when they have work the next day, or something important to do.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

You mention in it but then you go on to ignore it because the basis of your point is the "actual text" of the 12 steps, despite the fact that "as we understood him" is part of the actual text.

Again I commented directly on that too. Your definition of "ignore" is therefore entirely unrecognizable to me. Already the word "him" imparts characteristics onto this god. The word "him" is a personal pronoun. Had the text said "as we understand that word" you might have some ground to stand on. As it is now you have as much ground to stand on as Wile E Coyote threading air before plummeting off the edge of a cliff.

And the steps after this then go to to ascribe all kinds of other attributes to this god. Attributes that are all perfectly recognisable to anyone even passingly familiar with western and some eastern religions. And the 12 traditions then go on to call this "god" "loving". Can you show me anything but a conscious entity capable of love? I am agog.

So no, I will keep my analogy un-amended by your distortions thank you, as the only one guilty of the "selective interpretation" you speak of, is you yourself.

roosh wrote: »

They were adapted from the steps of a christian group

Yes that is what I have read though I tend to focus my reading more on AA today than back then. So my history of it is not 100% clear or researched. The group in question was called the "Oxford Group" I have been lead to believe. A onservative, highly religious cult group created by the Lutheran Frank Buchman.... a man noted in history for saying "I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler”.

I am not sure the procedures for treating any kind of mental or psychological condition should be thrown together subjectively by religious organisations at the best of times, let alone organisations of the nature of that one.

roosh wrote: »

Again, this points to an uninformed opinion as to what 12-step programs actually teach. 12-step programs teach people that they are powerless over their addiction - over alcohol in AA.

Your definition of "uninformed" appears to be as useful (that is to say: not) or as accurate (again: not) as your definition of "ignored". Given that, not only do I know the above perfectly well, but I have commented on it at length throughout the thread. I have questioned the grounds upon which people can assert the above, the motivation for making that assertion, and the effects it may or may not have to do so. And none of the answers I am getting back, those that exist that is, are good.

roosh wrote: »

12-step programs are actually about helping an addict to develop the personal strength to avoid taking the first drink or drug.

Which is a direct contradiction therefore. As the above describes the exact opposite of powerlessness. It describes leading a person to a point where they find that power, and then implement it.

roosh wrote: »

Firstly, people don't work through the 12-steps in the meetings, the meetings people attend are open support groups

If an AA meeting is not about the tenets, 12 steps, beliefs and ideas of AA then what makes it "AA" except the name on the door. You are diluting down what "AA" is to the point that it is now indistinguishable from any other open social support group.

You appear to want to have your cake and eat it. You want to laud AA and have AA and defend AA.... but then when talking about AA you break it down to such a dilute form that one is left not even knowing what you mean by "AA" at all.

If you are here ACTUALLY defending the idea of having a social support group then you have missed the mark as much as you are preaching to the choir. Because I have not once argued against that on any level.

roosh wrote: »

Are you saying that AA doesn't follow their own best practices or don't follow the best practices for treating addiction?

In a way: Both. Not only not following any such things, but also resisting any attempts to establish such a thing in the first place. If you actually read back over my posts in the thread you will find I am less telling people who I think such things should be treated so much as telling people what kinds of questions we should be asking, how we should be asking them, and what we should be doing if and when we get those answers.

That people take those posts as a direct attack simply suggests they are not reading them. The only two things I am attacking are 1) The blatant theistic nature of the program, that you simply head in the sand deny is there and 2) The refusal to engage with the kind of questions I am asking, and the motivations that lie behind that.

nozzferrahhtoo

mathepac wrote: »

As an non-member of a private, self-funding and self-sufficient organisation, you don't have the right, the standing or the capability to make demands of AA.

On the contrary, as a society it is incumbent upon us to do so, and to ensure people are not causing harm or worse by ad hoc cures. If I set up a cancer cure centre tomorrow, self funded, and claimed to be curing cancer by rubbing rose petals on peoples nipples, you can be damn sure that I would be attacked for this by law, media, and public alike.

mathepac wrote: »

And as has been already proven by reference to their own documentation, AA is not a religious organisation.

Has it? Where? Certainly not on this thread, and much less so by you. The references to the documentation, the 12 steps, and so forth have shown very clearly and blatantly the religious nature behind it.

And that is even before we go back in time to research how many of the claims about the two "founders" are actually true, how much of the 12 steps actually came from the "Oxford Group", and what their membership of it entailed.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

I know you are going to pick apart at least 2 of the these traditions Nozz, as they refer to God lol, so I'll await those posts with anticipation!

There is more to pick apart than that. But yes there is also that. However if you think I am going to gravitate towards only the "god" stuff you will be surprised. However since that is what you expect, I will start there.

People on here try to tell you that "god" can be anything you want. But the traditions in Step 2 refer to a "loving god". That is a theistic attribute, not a general one. Someone said your "higher power" could be evolution for example. Can evolution be "loving"? Clearly not. The theistic overtones of the attributes are blatant, yet people on here try to deny them.

But I am more worried about lines like "Our leaders are but trusted servants". "Leaders" is worrying enough. That confers an authority on them that I think is open to abuse. We do not call our doctors or psychologists "leaders". But the word "Trusted" sets off alarm bells too. As was said in posts earlier in the thread, these "leaders" are recommending Ad Hoc their own opinions to these vulnerable.... "followers" I guess if we are going to go with the word "leaders"..... and words like "trusted leaders" is going to lend credence to their espousals, no matter how nonsense they are. Like for example the aforementioned pressures some "followers" have come under to give up medication.

Also at least one other poster, perhaps more, and myself have been talking about how any purported treatment needs to be researched and changed by increment. Updated and improved. And done so with all the methodologies we have tried, tested and refined over the years of studying treatments. One of your traditions however pretty much blatantly puts any possible chance of this beyond reasonable discourse. "Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional".

Australian AA officials published guidelines for how to bar financial, spiritual, and sexual predators from the group but too little done in my opinion. They are in isolated efforts trying to paper mache over the flaws in the system at local level, in ad hoc and untried fashions.

sopretty wrote: »

Brian - I'm finding it hard to figure out what exactly the motivation behind your various posts here are.

I have explained my motivation at length and I feel, though I would not like to put words in his mouth, that Brian is in agreement with me.

Our motivation is to point out that the condition of alcohol dependency should be treated like we treat any other. Which is that through research, acquisition and interpretation of data, and close monitoring we should be constructing a best practice approach to help people treat the condition.

Our motivation is to point out that an ad hoc, decentralized, unpoliced, unmonitored, religious product that refuses all attempts to measure and improve its efficacy is likely not the best first step, but in fact the worst one.

sopretty wrote: »

You attempt to debunk statistics, when the statistics published were never lies.

And so we should. Statistics are massively powerful and useful things. Their ability to mislead however is terrifying. And the average joe soap on the street is not in the least bit trained at reading, interpreting and evaluating the usefulness of any one study or it's results and methodologies. We normally as a species turn that over to media science writers in news papers who, alas, are often no more trained in this than they are.

Simply reading the conclusions on the bottom of a paper is the worst thing anyone can do. Evaluating how those conclusions were reached is what is required. And yes.... very often..... results around AA are massively bad methodologies. Sample sets are picked that are designed to massage and give better results.

For example.... if I wanted to do a study on alcholism in the gay community.... I could take a completely randomised study of 1000 homosexuals. That is the RIGHT thing to do. OR I could take 1000 homosexuals who fall out of a gay night club at 3am of a Friday night.

Clearly my results are going to show a much greater use of alcohol in the gay community in my second group, no? This is what happens if you cherry pick your test set. And any study that comes out on AA the FIRST thing you should do is look at exactly who was included in the figures and how they were selected.

And many of the people who make such studies know this. They select as their test set only people who have been AA members for an extended period of time. This automatically ensures better looking figures.

sopretty wrote: »

You don't see alcoholism as a disease - even if it's defined as such.

Is it? By who? And how did they reach that definition _exactly_?

sopretty wrote: »

I am COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY POWERLESS over the choice to drink or not.

No, the choice is yours. Your failure to make that choice does not change the fact that the choice is yours. Yes you need help, supports, and assistance to get there, but at the end of the day the only person who can choose to drink or not drink is you. And when you choose not to for extended periods of time my respect for that decision and praise go to you predominantly and everyone and anything that helped you get there second. Even the choice to get up and go to AA is done from YOUR will alone. AA is not helping you stay off drink so much as it is a direct result of your decision to stay off drink.

We are a weak willed species indeed. But the weakness of that will does not negate its existence. It needs help, strength, discipline and more. But at the end of the day it comes down to no one but ourselves.

It sounds from your description that what helps you in particular is social support. That is no surprise at all, and as I have said many many times in this thread a supportive social group is one thing that AA DOES provide and I have never suggested otherwise at all, anywhere, ever.

nozzferrahhtoo

marienbad wrote: »

On the question of a disease - here is the shrinks view from Wiki

And did you read the link yourself? Nothing in it suggests that it is a disease. Quite the opposite in lines like "The term 'alcohol dependence' has replaced 'alcoholism' as a term in order that individuals do not internalize the idea of cure and disease, but can approach alcohol as a chemical they may depend upon to cope with outside pressures." and they call it "alcohol dependence syndrome"

It is becoming a little unclear to me exactly what point it is you are trying to make, a confusion compounded by the impression I get that the links you are giving support the opposite conclusion.

As I said, if someone wants to classify it as a disease the procedure to do so is simply. 1) List exactly the attributes something must meet to be classified professionally as a disease and 2) show how alcohol dependence meets the required minimum number of those characteristics.

marienbad wrote: »

On the idea that anyone can set up a meeting and say what they like.

And yet that seems to be what I am told. Not only on this thread but another one I posted on recently on the City Data forum. When I take issue with certain parts of the tenets, steps or the like I am told things like "Ah they are not so important, we do not really pay any attention to that in _our_ meetings".

This decentralised unregulated aspect of the whole thing is what concerns me. A pious evangelist of the philologos degree for example could easily start up a meeting in order to preach god and gospel. Another well meaning individual might start up another meetings and kick the god aspect out all but entirely.

marienbad wrote: »

On the idea of group leaders and abuse of trust by such leaders - there are no such leaders.

Is there not? Read the 12 traditions linked to by someone above. " Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.". The 12 traditions themselves acknowledges the existence of such "leaders". Yet you deny them?

The practice of these leaders and other members targeting new members for sex even has a name, it is that common place. It is called "Thirteenth-stepping". Hell even biographies of founder Bill Wilson detail his sexual encounters with attractive female members. And one of the group leaders... leaders you now say do not exist.... Michael Quinones had an interesting history you would do well to read into.

Things are worse in the US where crimes compounded by alcohol often have the perpetrator legally forced to go to AA. Which means sexual predators or worse are forced to go into such places. Sean Calahan who was prosecuted for molesting a 12 year old was court ordered to attend AA, where he then used that as a method to find more victims. When his diary was uncovered he was found to have written "Will take sex where I can get it. Who ever I can trick or use. Usually women early in sobriety cause they are the most vulnerable. They have the most insecurity so just a few words and a little care and they fall rite in to my trap. Its not there fault but I make them think it is there fault and tell them I love them and everything will be okay.”

And I do not say this just to score points or get one up. I am pointing up the risks that having a decentralised and unregulated system actually pose. People who set up these meetings, with hearts in the right place, simply are not experienced, trained, or equipped to deal with the multitude of ways they can cause harm directly, indirectly, or simply by being oblivious to best practice methods for protecting its members, weeding out possible predators and spotting and acting on abuses.



There is a misunderstanding of how meetings work (or don't as may be the case). That vulnerable individuals have been preyed on by others I have no doubt as to say otherwise would be utter foolishness , but is that not the case in every human entity ? Speaking for myself I have seen very little of it.

On the idea of telling people they are powerless etc- well we don't as it is a programme of attraction and not compulsion , but in effect ,certainly on a one to one we probably do. This is not a bad thing imo.The idea that this reduces that person somehow is not correct (again imo) . To believe that one can do this unaided or by choice alone is just a variation of that old cliché ''all he/she needs is a good kick up the arse '' There are some conditions such as some forms of depression and addiction that cannot be overcome unaided.

On the religious aspect - it most definitely is if you want it to be and the language would seem to indicate so, but it is not so if you don't want it to be. Is this a contradiction ? Possibly,probably . But society is full of such contradictions- America is a secular republic and yet has In God We Trust on the dollar bill . Such is life.

Sorry for yet another long post but just one final point , it is the absence of joined up thinking by the powers that be that make AA,Simon Community,St. Vincent de Paul etc such a vital part of society and this at a point in history where to live in the modern western world is to live in the most enlightened prosperous age in our history. Should the question not be why are such entities still functioning ?[/QUOTE]

marienbad wrote: »

I am sometimes perplexed at these definitions anyway and how they are arrived at and does it make a difference.

I used an analogy earlier in the thread I could repeat here.

If you go to a doctor presenting symptoms, they doctor can not simply treat the symptoms. He _must_ know the underlying cause.

Some symptoms for example can be identical if you have an infection..... as they are if you have a mineral deficiency. So if the doctor treats a disease when you have a deficiency, or a deficiency when you have a disease.... the treatment will be ineffectual outside any possible placebo effects.

You would not treat a bacterial infection with a mineral supplement. Or a mineral deficiency with an anti bacteria solution like antibiotics.

Knowing what it is you are treating is not just important it is PARAMOUNT in other words. The same is true here. Allocating the word "disease" to it for no reason already confines and narrows the approaches we would take to treating it. If we call it a disease why do we not treat it like one, except perhaps it is disease in name only?

I agree about removing stigma. In the Penn and Teller video the classic rebut to the woman saying it is NOT a disease was trotted out. "Why are you blaming the victim". That knee jerk answer lends much credence to your idea that AA wants it to be a disease to combat stigma. However the womans response was instant and fine. "It is not about allocating blame, it is about acknowledging responsibility".

A responsibility some of us think is undermined by telling the vulnerable that they are "powerless" over alcohol when in fact the _exact_ opposite is true.

marienbad wrote: »

AA dos'nt say anyone is powerless as defined above just powerless over alcohol.

And this is the fundamental misunderstanding in this discussion

It would be a mistake to take disagreement as misunderstanding. I understand the point entirely. I just disagree with it. You are anything but powerless over it. Short of us tying you to a chair to prevent you drinking, which is illegal, you are not only not powerless, you are the ONLY one who has the power in this.

I think the "misunderstanding".... if we want to use that word.... like in misconstruing a failure to attain a certain goal as being a powerlessness to do so. They are not the same thing. Do people fail in this often? YES! Clearly. But this does not make them powerless. It just means they need to try again and may need additional support to get there.

What support that should be, how best to provide it, how best to measure the efficacy and applicability of each treatment.... and so on.... are simply the kind of things people like myself are advocating. Not just on forums, but some of us live in the real world in forums where actual change could be implemented some day.