Wonders never cease

beefburrito

I have a friend he's on a 12 step program.
He is absolutely brainwashed,he says god tells him what to do and he'll use the higher power to get laid etc and it works....
Then he treats women like **** and when I say how can you live with hurting someone....
He'll say's her higher power will look after her.
I told him he's nuts,then he said what ever is the outcome of anything it's God's will.
He's not responsible for how any one feels and he handed it over to his higher power in the morning so it's ok.
Oh yeah he lives in the day,so if he was after knocking down a dog someone's pooch yesterday,then that was yesterday....
Today's a new day and all this delusional stuff....

Then he says that his higher power empowers him to get laid,I'm like wtf
I told him he's borderline off his chuck...

These 12 step programs have a lot to be accountable for...

I consider myself agnostic but I'm starting to wake up.
Or new age spirituality that's more rubbish.... it's taken me a long time to put the dots together.

I suppose listening to this guy in a way gave me an awakening, because organised religion,new age woo and other woo stuff can really take advantage of the vulnerable.

So now I'm starting to wake up.....

One eyed Jack

beefburrito wrote: »

These 12 step programs have a lot to be accountable for...

They do, but I don't think they can be held accountable for your friends attitudes and behaviours. He's entirely responsible for that himself, and your entertaining him is giving his opinions legitimacy they don't deserve.

I suppose listening to this guy in a way gave me an awakening, because organised religion,new age woo and other woo stuff can really take advantage of the vulnerable.

The same could be said of any ideology really, but your friend doesn't sound in the least bit vulnerable, he sounds like someone who simply craves attention.

Peregrinus

beefburrito wrote: »

These 12 step programs have a lot to be accountable for...

I don't think your friend's behaviour has anything to do with 12-step programmes, TBH.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same could be said of any ideology really, but your friend doesn't sound in the least bit vulnerable, he sounds like someone who simply craves attention.

Very difficult to know whether or not someone is vulnerable. I've known more than one deeply unpleasant aggressive alcoholic in my day that were also very vulnerable.

beefburrito wrote: »

These 12 step programs have a lot to be accountable for...

I'd guess they work better for some than others, I've one friend in the states who's kept off booze for over a decade with the help of AA and is a happier man for it. Personally, I'd be highly suspicious of the woo element, but whatever works. FWIW, four out of the five serious alcoholics I've known in my life are since dead, the other is the lad in the states who stuck with the AA.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Very difficult to know whether or not someone is vulnerable. I've known more than one deeply unpleasant aggressive alcoholic in my day that were also very vulnerable.

I'd be very cynical that the OP's friend picked up any of what he's coming out with in an AA meeting though. To be honest I wasn't even sure apart from the odd God bit what this is doing in A&A and wondering has the OP confused the forum with AA!

I'd guess they work better for some than others, I've one friend in the states who's kept off booze for over a decade with the help of AA and is a happier man for it. Personally, I'd be highly suspicious of the woo element, but whatever works. FWIW, four out of the five serious alcoholics I've known in my life are since dead, the other is the lad in the states who stuck with the AA.

True, I'd be the very same, though it's a few years now since I had any dealings with AA personally, but as you say whatever works, works for some but wouldn't work for all, and it doesn't sound like it's working particularly well for the OP's friend. Then of course there's always the possibility that his friend is like that regardless of whether he was ever doing the 12 steps or not.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd be very cynical that the OP's friend picked up any of what he's coming out with in an AA meeting though. To be honest I wasn't even sure apart from the odd God bit what this is doing in A&A and wondering has the OP confused the forum with AA!

The comment was more about experience with alcoholics, who can be every kind of nasty and yet still vulnerable themselves. I've no experience at all of the AA other than my friend in the states, who's experience seems positive. Having a few friends who work in counselling for various types of substance abuse, from what I gather success rates are often low and depend to a very large extent firstly on the individual and secondly on their ability to get out of a toxic environment.

Peregrinus

The OP says his friend is in a 12-step programme, but doesn't say that his friend's problem is the drink, or that the programme is the one offered by AA. Obviously all 12-step programmes have stuff in common, and in particular I think they all involve accepting that one cannot control one's addiction, and recognising one's dependence on a "higher power" to cope with it, frequently but not necessarily conceptualised as "god". Success rates are variable; they may partly depend on the nature of the addiction suffered.

I'm pretty certain that there are no 12-step programmes which involve the higher power telling you what to do, empowering you to get laid, or absolving you of responsibility for the consequences of your actions. It's quite the reverse, in fact, as regards the last point - several of the 12 steps involve acknowledging, taking responsiblity for and endeavouring to remedy the harm your actions are causing to others. So, wherever the OP's friend is getting the toxic attitudes described, it's not from participation in a 12-step programme.

recedite

I think what's being suggested here is the concept that when The Lord is on your side, you can do no wrong. If man is not in control of destiny, then he is not responsible for what may happen in the future.

This excuse for poor behaviour has been a constant theme throughout history, from the atrocities committed by crusaders against people in "the holy land", to modern jihadists, to "climate change deniers". In the case of the latter, mostly they do not actually deny global warming, they simply deny that mere mortal's have any significant impact on it.

In the case of the guy in the OP example, it seems the program has encouraged him (perhaps inadvertently) to believe that The Lord is rewarding him, and The Lord will make good any collateral damage, if that is what He desires to do.

beefburrito

recedite wrote: »

I think what's being suggested here is the concept that when The Lord is on your side, you can do no wrong. If man is not in control of destiny, then he is not responsible for what may happen in the future.

This excuse for poor behaviour has been a constant theme throughout history, from the atrocities committed by crusaders against people in "the holy land", to modern jihadists, to "climate change deniers". In the case of the latter, mostly they do not actually deny global warming, they simply deny that mere mortal's have any significant impact on it.

In the case of the guy in the OP example, it seems the program has encouraged him (perhaps inadvertently) to believe that The Lord is rewarding him, and The Lord will make good any collateral damage, if that is what He desires to do.

Exactly you have it in one.
This Friend of mine was suggested that he's borderline narcissistic by the therapist at his treatment center.

So he'll twist any bad or good behavior in his favour.
The AA program is ok if one is just there to get well and share their experiences strength and hope....

I'm off the hooch since 2001 and dip into AA meetings now and again,but you'll get a lot of unwell people there who never really got professional help.

You'll hear if you don't get a god in your life or stay on the program you're destined to go insane die or drink again, there's no inbetewen.

You'll also see people told they have to do service it will help them get well.

Then you'll get the bleeding deacon saying the only reason one had a bad day is because they didn't hand their will and life over to God.

I told my friend he's using the AA program as an excuse for bad behaviour,he thinks God has it all mapped out for him....
I'm told if I was on the program I'd be keeping it in the day and not be looking at what happened yesterday.

Grown adults should be responsible for their behaviour.
And not detach emotionally from the hurt they cause others.

I'm not a disgruntled AA member or dry drunk,I am just starting to realize the way some people can get sucked into a spiritual concept and it can basically turn them into zombies....

robindch

beefburrito wrote: »

So he'll twist any bad or good behavior in his favour.

Unfortunately, that's what some people do, regardless of any substance-dependence.

In my own limited experience, the majority of people who do this twisting (in themselves and others), seem to hold a range of other related personality attributes, most of which are included on the following list:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

I've no idea how the 12-step program might feed into NPD, but there certainly seems to be some kind of co-dependency going on there.

YMMV.

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

I am just starting to realize the way some people can get sucked into a spiritual concept and it can basically turn them into zombies....

To quote Marx "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". My take on this is that religion often becomes a refuge for those who are oppressed or deeply unhappy, much like opium, or more recently, valium, diazepam etc... Whether it is more damaging than the alternative for a person who is failing to cope that the rest of society has no real interest in helping is questionable.

Hotblack Desiato

Swapping one addiction for another isn't solving the underlying issue.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Swapping one addiction for another isn't solving the underlying issue.

True, but it can potentially address many of the more unpleasant symptoms. Much as I can't abide excessive religious zeal, AFAIK it doesn't typically give you cirrhosis of liver, make you violent or leave you homeless. I similarly dislike proselytising, particularly of vulnerable individuals, but if the AA can help a few chronic alcoholics that we as a society have failed to help, more power to them.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I similarly dislike proselytising, particularly of vulnerable individuals, but if the AA can help a few chronic alcoholics that we as a society have failed to help, more power to them.

The forum is here to help

faceman

I have a friend who is 14 years dry this month and she credits the 12 Step Programme for it. She’s not a holy joe though and anytime I mention the religious aspect she says that the groups she goes to it’s a take it or leave it approach for most. It’s certainly not a method to push religion on people.

I’ve worked with others who have been through the AA and have had similar experiences.

Sounds like there may be an abuse of power in play in the less savoury groups.

beefburrito

You'll find that in certain groups you'll have the bleeding deacon's and big book pushers.
Then there's groups where there's a lot more educated and horizontal people just there to share their experiences strength and hope.

We the more rational members don't really mind the more holy God members,yet the holy God members think we're all going the wrong way and we're not really happy with our lives.

How could we be well,we don't have a God in our life....lol

If we had a God I'm our life we'd be invincible supposedly,even though one of the founding members was crying out for whiskey on his death bed and experimenter with LSD throughout sobriety......

Drumpot

Person chooses to try AA to get well and it doesn't work for them . . AA is "the problem" . Person takes medication to ease their anxiety/depression, the person is seen as not having the desired reaction to the medication but the solution may be more medication, not necessarily classing the medication as "the problem" . Just one example of how society selectively chooses to shift blame depending on its prejudice.

I am not particularly religious, I would class myself as Agnostic but from what I have learned from AA, you get out what you put into it. You only grow if you practise what the message is trying to teach you.

I don't believe a person who goes to AA and doesn't get well is a negative reflection on the AA program that works for me. There are many many reasons why the programme works for some and not for others and they cant be summarised as "its a religious cult".

The founding member of AA suffered for over a decade after setting it up with chronic depression. One of the basic failings people have when going to AA is having certain expectations of what sort of life you will have if you follow AA.

My perception of AA is that it is a community of men and woman with a common issue, who are trying to get well and be better. That's it in a nutshell. At times it can feel culty, particularly early on when you are at your most vulnerable. But I have met some of the most reliable, wisest and kind people in my life in AA.

Since I have joined AA, I am off all medications (Zanex, Sleeping tablets, anti depressants), I have lost weight, am actively fit, haven't drank or smoked in more then 5 years and my attitudes and relationships with people and my family has never been stronger. I have had to deal with the hardest moment of my life (my dad passing) and couldn't of imagined the strength I could give to my family.

I don't put all my growth down to AA because I personally supplement it with CBT and you have to work hard to figure out where AA will be involved in your life, but it has been integral in helping me get well. Whether its AA or CBT or doctors advice, if you don't take action and take the advice given and try to improve things, nothing changes.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

I don't believe a person who goes to AA and doesn't get well is a negative reflection on the AA program that works for me.

That is why these things should not be measured at the level of the individual. It should be measured using methodologies like we find in epidemiology. And alas the measures we get from that do not reflect well on AA. The figures just do not suggest that over all it is an effective treatment for Alcoholism.

And what few benefits DO seem to come from it do not come from the "12 steps" at all from what I have seen. But rather it comes from, as you put it yourself, being "a community of men and woman with a common issue". That ALONE is a useful tool for anyone fighting with an addiction. And you can use that tool without having to implement any of the rest of the nonsense that either does nothing, or makes things worse.

I never take away from individual anecdotes of people, like yourself, who went there and found it personally beneficial. That is always great to hear! But I am skeptical about what we can extrapolate from the occasional anecdote of that form. Especially whenever it turns out that AA is being given credit for something that person actually did themselves really.

Drumpot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is why these things should not be measured at the level of the individual. It should be measured using methodologies like we find in epidemiology. And alas the measures we get from that do not reflect well on AA. The figures just do not suggest that over all it is an effective treatment for Alcoholism.

And what few benefits DO seem to come from it do not come from the "12 steps" at all from what I have seen. But rather it comes from, as you put it yourself, being "a community of men and woman with a common issue". That ALONE is a useful tool for anyone fighting with an addiction. And you can use that tool without having to implement any of the rest of the nonsense that either does nothing, or makes things worse.

I never take away from individual anecdotes of people, like yourself, who went there and found it personally beneficial. That is always great to hear! But I am skeptical about what we can extrapolate from the occasional anecdote of that form. Especially whenever it turns out that AA is being given credit for something that person actually did themselves really.

One big "problem" with AA might be that you have unqualified people (in some cases crazy people) giving advice to vulnerable people. A mixture of luck (who you meet or befriend) and how bad you are can determine the level of positive or negative things you can get from it. On the flipside, the very fact its not trained professionals but people who have been through a very similar experience to you is a strength on the a different level. There really is no compensation for life experience, once of course its the right kind of experience/wisdom.

I have worked with 3 different sponsors and gotten different things from each one. But none of them were infallible and life experiences were their qualifications, so I had to be careful. CBT to compliment AA was my "Cheques and balance" because I discuss AA with a professional. I have grown in AA because I have tried multiple approaches to improving my mental health and I have people inside and outside helping me. I don't soley rely on AA.

I wouldn't be a "bible basher" and found the steps very helpful at the start because of the kind of person I was. I needed some sort of map to show me that there was a plan that I could follow. One person explained to me "you don't have to understand at the start, you just have to believe it will work". I took this on the face of it and on reflection its very similar to a doctor giving you a placebo and saying "this will sort you out" when you already start to feel a bit of relief at the very thought. I believe the concept of hope , believing that there was a non medicated (medication was going to kill me) alternative in an environment with fellow vulnerable people was very important to me.

I also must stress that I, personally, felt really lonely joining AA. On paper I had plenty of friends, wife, children and very supported, but I didn't feel it. Being apart of a community of people was integral.

Another element I have to point out is that there are really healthy, wise and kind people in AA. People who have experience and advice that even a professional therapist would struggle to discuss. These people are not being paid to support you, so there is that element that makes their support a bit special.

The programme itself interlinks with CBT on many levels. If you don't interpret it exactly as "you have to believe in god" (which it actually doesn't require), you can see the positive practises it encourages. The programme is very much about looking at yourself, your behaviour, your reaction to the world around you. Seeing how the actions of people , places and things have had a hugely negative impact on your life. This is , IMO, pretty much the same kind of stuff I go through in therapy.

I see people come in and out. I see people goto loads and loads of meetings and not change a bit. Some people go more mad quoting the Big book and telling everybody else whats wrong with them. The gas thing is that some of the craziest people can give very wise advice one to one.

I think of AA like one option for Alcoholics. Works for some, not for others. There is a saying that "when the student is ready a teacher will appear" and I found that in life. I started actively searching for a solution to my problem instead of procrastinating and feeling suicidal. Reaching out to online support groups, going to Aware, recommended to Aware group CBT, gave me confidence to change doctors, new doctor took me off meds and advised a CBT therapist who suggested I try AA. I was ready to try and learn and as I searched for a solution, I got answers and help from different sources.

As I said, AA was not the only solution, but it was a significant piece of my rehabilitation that I will not forget. Once you "get it", you can use AA positively and give back to other suffering alcoholics. I don't feel medication is the solution to most mental health issues, but like AA it can be used as one technique to help you get back on your feet.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

One big "problem" with AA might be that you have unqualified people (in some cases crazy people)

Yeah that has been something I picked up on. I am not some guru of AA that knows all about them or anything, but I have read in many places that they are not at all regulated. So anyone can set up an AA group and anyone can give their own interpretation of the 12 steps pretty much.

And this unregulated nature of it means you are going to get varying quality of service. People who often mean well, or people who want to take advantage somehow, or even people who just want to use it to perpetuate religion to the vulnerable.

None of this is good.

All the advantages you speak of seem, as I said in the last post, to have little or nothing to do with AA in and of itself, and all to do with the fact it is a social mutually supportive peer group with similar experiences. An of course there are many groups, including non "AA" alcohol groups, that offer that without the 12 steps.

The other big "failure" of people trying to give up alcohol is that they do not change anything else in their life. They just try to stop alcohol. So that leaves a hole i n their life which needs to be filled. And it calls out for alcohol to fill it. So one thing a social support group, AA or other, offers is something to fill that hole. I do not think I have ever heard anyone succeed in giving up a chronic alcohol addiction if they ONLY tried to stop drinking alcohol and nothing else.

There is another guy writing on this forum who helps a few people with alcohol addictions himself. No 12 steps, he just guides them in Vipassana Meditation. Apparently he has helped a few people with addictions, and a couple of people with anger management issues, and a few people with social anxiety. I wonder have you explored that in the varied tools you say you have sampled? How did you find it? I believe people claim that results are hard won at first in the short term, but well worth it in the long term.

Your reference to placebo and belief is interesting. Do you know what one of the most surprising discoveries in placebo research has been over the years? Of all the shocks and surprises placebo gives, the most surprising one of all is that placebos even work when you TELL the people you are giving it to that it is a placebo.

It is surprising how one can feel lonely even in a large family. I have had periods of that in my life too. SO I know exactly where you are coming from on that score.

But over all when you say it "works for some and not for others" I think that only tells half the story. The figures on their success rates, even the ones AA have themselves released, show the "others" is a far far larger group than the "some". That you as an individual get a lot from it however, is something no one can or should take away from!

Hotblack Desiato

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But rather it comes from, as you put it yourself, being "a community of men and woman with a common issue". That ALONE is a useful tool for anyone fighting with an addiction. And you can use that tool without having to implement any of the rest of the nonsense that either does nothing, or makes things worse.

It's a bit like when people talk about the benefits of religion, how people who attend church regularly are healthier, happier, live longer etc. But this overlooks two things. Firstly that the people who are able to attend a church regularly are not too ill, immobile or depressed to be able to leave the house. So of course they're going to be happier, healthier and longer lived than the average, because the average includes the people who are unable to go. Secondly, the benefits come from meeting up with people and attending a performance (of sorts). It wouldn't matter if it was a men's shed or a folk singing group. The god stuff is not required at all for the benefits to arise.

Drumpot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah that has been something I picked up on. I am not some guru of AA that knows all about them or anything, but I have read in many places that they are not at all regulated. So anyone can set up an AA group and anyone can give their own interpretation of the 12 steps pretty much.

And this unregulated nature of it means you are going to get varying quality of service. People who often mean well, or people who want to take advantage somehow, or even people who just want to use it to perpetuate religion to the vulnerable.

None of this is good.

All the advantages you speak of seem, as I said in the last post, to have little or nothing to do with AA in and of itself, and all to do with the fact it is a social mutually supportive peer group with similar experiences. An of course there are many groups, including non "AA" alcohol groups, that offer that without the 12 steps.

The other big "failure" of people trying to give up alcohol is that they do not change anything else in their life. They just try to stop alcohol. So that leaves a hole i n their life which needs to be filled. And it calls out for alcohol to fill it. So one thing a social support group, AA or other, offers is something to fill that hole. I do not think I have ever heard anyone succeed in giving up a chronic alcohol addiction if they ONLY tried to stop drinking alcohol and nothing else.

There is another guy writing on this forum who helps a few people with alcohol addictions himself. No 12 steps, he just guides them in Vipassana Meditation. Apparently he has helped a few people with addictions, and a couple of people with anger management issues, and a few people with social anxiety. I wonder have you explored that in the varied tools you say you have sampled? How did you find it? I believe people claim that results are hard won at first in the short term, but well worth it in the long term.

Your reference to placebo and belief is interesting. Do you know what one of the most surprising discoveries in placebo research has been over the years? Of all the shocks and surprises placebo gives, the most surprising one of all is that placebos even work when you TELL the people you are giving it to that it is a placebo.

It is surprising how one can feel lonely even in a large family. I have had periods of that in my life too. SO I know exactly where you are coming from on that score.

But over all when you say it "works for some and not for others" I think that only tells half the story. The figures on their success rates, even the ones AA have themselves released, show the "others" is a far far larger group than the "some". That you as an individual get a lot from it however, is something no one can or should take away from!

I suppose I don’t feel the need, personally to dig too deep into the “does AA work?” Because I have found a way of living that has changed my life and AA has been a positive factor.

In terms of AA itself, I found the structure appealing. Aware meetings didn’t work for me, so it wasn’t simply that I needed a support group. The AA meetings are designed around people giving their experience , strength and hope that they have gotten from doing or attempting the programmer. As such I don’t feel it’s fair to just dismiss the steps or it’s teachings. I find some meetings where it’s clear people practice the programs (not preach) are definitely more grounded then meetings where people just dump their problems With no intention of changing or working on them. It’s not trying to be judgy just observant in a sense that I feel people who have attempted the programme are generally more grounded and emotionally sober.

A meeting isn’t just people sitting around talking about drink. You have a secretary , who is the person who sets up and runs the meeting. You have usually one person who has circa 15 minutes to share their story. This person usually sets the tone for a meeting. It’s generally easy to spot people who have genuinely tried the steps and made efforts to rehabilitate with those who haven’t. Many people do use the rooms as a support group but don’t get involved in service or really attempt the steps. A meeting is only one element of the programme, if you only goto meetings I would be questioning if you are really fully trying AA.

I’ve done talks in schools, done prison service on behalf of AA and been involved in different service positions within the group. It helped me grow and feel part of the community. This helped with my lonelinessa and because I committed to certain roles it forced me to be involved even when there were times I really didn’t want to. I instinctively isolate myself when I’m low, elements of AA have helped me address this very toxic response to anxiety and depression.

Meditation helps calm my mind and while at the beginning meetings were a neccessity, now they feel just part of my life. Went to one tonight. I get a sense of relaxing before , during and after because I know it’s a positive thing to take time out of your day to reflect on your life good and bad. Some days mediation is good and some days meetings are just as helpful.

I have found a balance that’s working but I might look up that guy you mentioned because I’m not closed off to positive strategy’s to complement my existing folder. I have tried meditation but actually see that as my spiritual part of the 12 step programme that some people relate to god. I’m not religious but get comfort in going into churches and enjoying the peace and allowing myself to grieve my dad.

I’m not sure how anybody has any figures on AA because I’ve never seen any recording of anything that could be used to give reasonable indications of success or failure. Many people who don’t succeed feel ashamed and many of us keep our connections to AA very private. Many people lie to their GPs and themselves so a person who has been to AA but not really tried anything isn’t really a reliable source. I’ve been to meetings all over Ireland and didn’t leave my name or details with anybody. Moreover , how you actually monitor those who are better or just dry drunks! All I can tell you is that most conventional medical “solutions” didn’t work for me. I’ve had interesting discussions with my doctor who has been with me all the way. Particularly with the issue of conventional “wisdom” and over reliance on mediation. I believe this is a bigger problem then AA.

I hope this Doesn’t come across as preachy. I’m only trying to share my experience of AA and my interpretation of its teachings that aren’t as rigid or dogmatic in my life as they might be in other members.

Hotblack Desiato

Thanks for that post, and your others in this thread. Can you enlighten me on the reality as opposed to the stereotypical view of AA? We've all seen the TV dramas where some dry for 48 hours guy stands up and says "My name is X and I'm an alcoholic", but what happens after that? You can't all pour your hearts out every week, what's it really like for the recovering alcoholic in 'maintenance mode' as it were? After five or ten years do you still have stories to tell? How do you support the new members?

Drumpot wrote: »

I have tried meditation but actually see that as my spiritual ?part of the 12 step programme that some people relate to god. I’m not religious but get comfort in going into churches and enjoying the peace and allowing myself to grieve my dad.

I'm a recovering catholic :pac: and I determined not to go to their ceremoniies ever again over 30 years ago, except funerals I'd feel obliged to go*, but about 15 years ago I went to a memorial service in St. Pat's Cathedral and despite all the high-church Anglicanism it didn't trigger my catholic vibes. Odd that, as to all intents and purposes on a rational level it's pretty much the same thing. Perhaps it's like the old Dave Allen "Did you fart" joke. We laughed up our sleeves safe in the knowledge that on BBC TV he was ridiculing Prods - but he was in fact brought up a catholic! He's the only Irish person I'm aware of who, in the 1970s, was prepared to admit he was an atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6hAQmR1fg

* I've since determined I won't go to those either. I'll stand respectfully outside the door, but I can't bear to set foot inside an rcc church ever again. My one barely surviving parent's send-off shall be a conundrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYXenjpefNU

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

As such I don’t feel it’s fair to just dismiss the steps or it’s teachings.

No as I said myself you need more data to do that. And as I said when the numbers come in, even numbers released by AA themselves, the rates of success their program offers are markedly bad. That a few people feel it works for them is, well, expected for a number of reasons I could go into. But that OVERALL it shows no signs of being a useful is what is interesting to me, also for a few reasons.

But as I said, everything in all three of your posts tells me that it was not AA per se that helped you, so much as getting heavily involved at every level of a social group of peers. That alone helps on so many levels.

Drumpot wrote: »

I have tried meditation but actually see that as my spiritual part of the 12 step programme that some people relate to god.

Meditation does get mixed up with religion and more woo versions of "spirituality" a lot. But in fact that is not accurate at all. Mindfulness meditations, such as Vipassana, have nothing at all to do with either. It is merely a practice of training and noticing one's own moment to moment subjective experience. It is completely divested from any woo, unsubstantiated assumptions about gods or the universe, and entirely open to even the most strident of secularists or atheists.

I can drum up some of the studies and figures I looked into in the past regarding AA though, if you have not seen any of them yourself. But I am not sure it would be any use to either of us Your call.

Drumpot

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Thanks for that post, and your others in this thread. Can you enlighten me on the reality as opposed to the stereotypical view of AA? We've all seen the TV dramas where some dry for 48 hours guy stands up and says "My name is X and I'm an alcoholic", but what happens after that? You can't all pour your hearts out every week, what's it really like for the recovering alcoholic in 'maintenance mode' as it were? After five or ten years do you still have stories to tell? How do you support the new members?




I'm a recovering catholic :pac: and I determined not to go to their ceremoniies ever again over 30 years ago, except funerals I'd feel obliged to go*, but about 15 years ago I went to a memorial service in St. Pat's Cathedral and despite all the high-church Anglicanism it didn't trigger my catholic vibes. Odd that, as to all intents and purposes on a rational level it's pretty much the same thing. Perhaps it's like the old Dave Allen "Did you fart" joke. We laughed up our sleeves safe in the knowledge that on BBC TV he was ridiculing Prods - but he was in fact brought up a catholic! He's the only Irish person I'm aware of who, in the 1970s, was prepared to admit he was an atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6hAQmR1fg

* I've since determined I won't go to those either. I'll stand respectfully outside the door, but I can't bear to set foot inside an rcc church ever again. My one barely surviving parent's send-off shall be a conundrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYXenjpefNU

Dave Allen is hilarious, love his humor.

Just as a disclaimer I want to confirm what I am sure you know which is this is just my perception and experience with AA. I am not trying to upset anybody , paint a bias pic (although since I’ve has a positive experience I awknowledge that’s what will come across) and have no doubt people have had negative experiences within the community.

I spent over 2 decades trying out therapy, mediations and different techniques to relieve my pain. I was always looking for something but didn’t know what and it wasn’t until one therapist recommended AA that I really felt my rehabilitation took a drastic upward curve.

I went to my first meeting desperate to connect with people and desperate to be an alcoholic. Many people go there under duresss (threatened by partner or family) or with the wrong intentions (pick up vulnerable woman- not really interested in changing just support). I feel lucky cause I had “the gift of desperation” as somebody put it to me so in my early months I just soaked up advice and didn’t challenge things being said to me.

I feel keeping it transparent , talking with close friends and support networks (my doctor and therapist) helped keep me away from potential bad elements of it. My first meeting was very weird, I went with a Neighbour I knew which helped and I would recommend anybody going first to see if they can find a member they trust. It’s not vital but it helped me. Everybody knows an alcoholic but the problem is that they might not know it!

I suppose for the first 30 days there is usually a recommendation to get as many meetings in early sobriety. Think of it like taking more medication when the pain is at its worst and tapering off to lower levels as things get better. I got plenty of meetings in but didn’t do the 30 days suggestion. It’s clear some people need it more then others.

The first few weeks were really odd and I did worry I was getting dragged into a cult. There are really wise people, really rigid bible book thumpers and some really sick people in AA. It can be scary at the start because for me I didn’t know what to believe and felt scared at some of the things being said. On reflection, i really grew up in AA.

One phrase you hear “put AA first in all your affairs”, sounds so culty and I believe some people do this in an unhealthy way. I remember I was doing all sorts of service and shared at a meeting “ I keep hearing people say that I have to put AA first but I don’t know how much is enough!”. A man came up to me at the end and said “you are coming to AA so your family benefits. If you are always doing AA stuff how can that be good for your family? Be involved in AA but not to the detriment of your family”. I immediately asked him to be my Sponcor and to work the programme with me. But not everybody meets a Martin that has such a wise take on the programme.

It takes some people a while to say “hi, i am x and I am an alcoholic” and many people admit that they have said that and not meant it. Some people talk about it taking them years in AA to accept that they are alcoholic.

In terms of sharing your pain, it varys. Some people come every week and share the same stuff. Others share in a way you can see the progression of their lives. Quite simple Victories are great to hear, particularly improvements with children or partners.

I’m over 5 years in AA now and shared last night. People ask “why do you keep going?” And there is a few reasons for me. The primary one is because I enjoy being apart of AA on my terms. I wouldn’t be as involved as I was at the start and don’t get as many meetings in as I used to. I really enjoy my relationships with certain people who I feel I can be my honest self with. I don’t need to pretend I’m ok when I’m not and I know they will support me if I need it and I try to support them.

Life keeps throwing curveballs at us all so when stressful or upsetting events happen I find great comfort in going to meetings that includes the AA language that’s very much spiritual in nature. I had been listening to Buddhism for beginners and it’s teachings , like some of AA, overlap with CBT- keep in the present. Enjoy the simple things in life.

One member of AA helped me get around my own God/religious prejudice. I was
Asking “how do you do this programme if you don’t know if you believe in god and don’t feel religious?”. He said “if you have a problem , go around it”. What he meant was don’t get bogged down in the god debate, just work on the elements of the programme that I can. I’ve heard some people say “I don’t know how you can say you are on a programme when you don’t have god on your side”. In the early time in AA this would unsettle me because it suggests I am doing something wrong. Now I take it that this is just how that person interprets the programme and they are welcome to their opinion.

Anybody trying out AA I would recommend trying out different meetings because you can get radically different meetings depending on where you go. Don’t let one or two put you off. It takes time to get used to it and it can be uncomfortable at times because it’s different and you can feel very vulnerable at times. Some meetings are a great laugh, they aren’t all dreary horror stories. I’ve had some of the funniest times (felt great laughing again) at AA meetings. I think having a home group really enhances this (a local meeting you frequent regularly).

In terms of ongoing maintenance as you put it, this is where I feel the programme is important. Going to meetings is good housekeeping but practicing the steps at home is what separates people trying to change with people who think meetings are enough. I tried different suggestions like going down on knees and praying morning and night. In morning to ask for help through the day and at night to reflect on how I acted around people and to challenge my behavior. Was I fair? Was I honest? Do I need to apologize or make amends? Now I just try to reflect in a spiritual sense when putting time aside to reflect. I don’t see these as religious, just good mental housekeeping. And it was the 12 steps that thought me that very helpful tool.

The steps also helped me identify my “defects of character”. CBT would identify this as the reactions and things I keep doing that are causing me pain. Doing step 4 really was an amazing help at me purging old pains and spotting my role and behavior that was allowing these things be cut off from family and friends and life. When you are constantly anxious and depressed , it’s hard to feel any connection to anybody.

Step 5 and the next few steps helps you address these problems and share them with somebody. The idea is that they aren’t a dirty secret of Shame and you are shedding that shame and trying to move on. Again AA teachings were way ahead of its time because I relate a lot of it to my CBT.

The other steps are about how you try to make amends and continue to change for the better. I suppose I see AA as a good roadmap to lead a good life , where people around you benefit from the work you put in.

I also learned to use the very helpful tip of “if you really want to know how you are doing, ask your wife”. I can feel great and that I’m flying but I may have gotten into a self absorbed zone where I’m not giving consideration to those around me. My wife and AA friends will quickly tell me what I’m doing wrong.

Drumpot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No as I said myself you need more data to do that. And as I said when the numbers come in, even numbers released by AA themselves, the rates of success their program offers are markedly bad. That a few people feel it works for them is, well, expected for a number of reasons I could go into. But that OVERALL it shows no signs of being a useful is what is interesting to me, also for a few reasons.

But as I said, everything in all three of your posts tells me that it was not AA per se that helped you, so much as getting heavily involved at every level of a social group of peers. That alone helps on so many levels.



Meditation does get mixed up with religion and more woo versions of "spirituality" a lot. But in fact that is not accurate at all. Mindfulness meditations, such as Vipassana, have nothing at all to do with either. It is merely a practice of training and noticing one's own moment to moment subjective experience. It is completely divested from any woo, unsubstantiated assumptions about gods or the universe, and entirely open to even the most strident of secularists or atheists.

I can drum up some of the studies and figures I looked into in the past regarding AA though, if you have not seen any of them yourself. But I am not sure it would be any use to either of us Your call.

Thanks but I revert to the “you don’t have to understand , you just have to believe” mantra that has worked so well for me. I used to get so wound up trying to understand what was wrong with me and what was the solution. Even trying to understand AA used to upset me. Letting go of this need to understand was liberating. In the rooms it says “let go, let god” which is really just letting go of your need to understand and control things in uour life. Again , people get hung up on the word god, but it’s a basic CBT technique to just try and practice accepting the world and your life the way it is.

What is interesting about your stance in this, is that there is no Accurate data on AA yet you presume the negative to be the case. There is no obvious one shoe fits all solution for addicts yet you appear confident AA is not uniquely helpful overall.

Medication doesn’t work. I’ve heard of a drug that makes people get sick if they drink alcohol. Most alcoholics or addicts I talk to agree that they will just find another poison or addiction (sex, gambling, food etc) . It’s a ridiculously poor solution that doesn’t address the route issue. Many people get worse in mediation or anti depressants.

With regards to CBT or therapy, my issue is that there are elements, that I cannot fully explain, that you just don’t get from therapy.

And then there is the information that shines a negative light on AA. Perhaps it’s all true but I would be interested to know the Angle of the originator of that information. AA would not be good for big pharma and therapists because it’s free support. A lot of scientific research is basically one vested interest group paying scientists to investigate something and they publish only the elements that benefit them.

This isn’t to say that AA is perfect or as effective as I say. But in the absence of reliable data, I find your dismissive stance hard to understand. I think I have given plenty of information to show that going to meetings for support is only one part of AA. Perhaps I am not understanding your points but I don’t feel going to a meeting would be as beneficial if I and others hadn’t had the steps to help us change.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is amazing how the rights words at the right time can help, when every program and group and book you have had before did nothing. The human brain is a weird thing, and just the right thing said in the right way can change everything. Even if 100 other people said essentially the same thing 100 times before!

I stopped drinking alcohol over a year and a half ago now when I realized my relationship with it was getting very bad. Very slowly over time I had developed a bad relationship with it. But it was so slow that I did not see it.

The good thing for me was I very much was in the "I can stop anytime" category. I do not have an addiction. I just binge WHEN I drink. But not drinking was never an issue.

The BAD thing with that is most people think an alcoholic is someone who can not stop. They do not realize that there are many different forms of alcoholism. And I very much was/am one of those forms. I can stop drinking for a week a month a year and I believe even a decade. But I have poor control WHEN I drink. And that very much makes me an alcoholic. Just not in the classic sense most people understand the word.

And the enlightenment moment on all that came for me when I once heard a guy say "Hi I am Mr. Soandso, I am an alcoholic, and I have not had a drink in 25 years". My first feeling was "Ehhhh ya what now?" and then quickly came a cascading enlightenment moment of "Oh yea! I absolutely see what he means there! And I absolutely see what that means to and for ME!".

Where such enlightenment moments will come for each of us, no one can say. It can be sitting in the middle of an AA meeting, or it can be while reading the back of a cereal packet. But you clearly come across in your post as what they call over here in Germany "Ein sehr nachdenkendes mench" (guaranteed I have the grammar wrong there) in that you think deeply about your past present and future. And that is a good thing.

Drumpot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is amazing how the rights words at the right time can help, when every program and group and book you have had before did nothing. The human brain is a weird thing, and just the right thing said in the right way can change everything. Even if 100 other people said essentially the same thing 100 times before!

I stopped drinking alcohol over a year and a half ago now when I realized my relationship with it was getting very bad. Very slowly over time I had developed a bad relationship with it. But it was so slow that I did not see it.

The good thing for me was I very much was in the "I can stop anytime" category. I do not have an addiction. I just binge WHEN I drink. But not drinking was never an issue.

The BAD thing with that is most people think an alcoholic is someone who can not stop. They do not realize that there are many different forms of alcoholism. And I very much was/am one of those forms. I can stop drinking for a week a month a year and I believe even a decade. But I have poor control WHEN I drink. And that very much makes me an alcoholic. Just not in the classic sense most people understand the word.

And the enlightenment moment on all that came for me when I once heard a guy say "Hi I am Mr. Soandso, I am an alcoholic, and I have not had a drink in 25 years". My first feeling was "Ehhhh ya what now?" and then quickly came a cascading enlightenment moment of "Oh yea! I absolutely see what he means there! And I absolutely see what that means to and for ME!".

Where such enlightenment moments will come for each of us, no one can say. It can be sitting in the middle of an AA meeting, or it can be while reading the back of a cereal packet. But you clearly come across in your post as what they call over here in Germany "Ein sehr nachdenkendes mench" (guaranteed I have the grammar wrong there) in that you think deeply about your past present and future. And that is a good thing.

I agree completely. Perhaps it was simply the right thing at the right time. I suppose when you get into a good space, after years of pain, you don’t feel the need to dissect the solution, you just want to enjoy it!

Can you post the details of that mediation guy please? I might be interested in giving it a go.

nozzferrahhtoo

Taxahcruel is the boards.ie user who runs a guided medtiation thing, but it is in Maynooth so that might not be good for you. But feel free to contact him. He has written a few times on the forum about his running such a group, so maybe something he has to offer will be of interest to you.

Drumpot wrote: »

There is no obvious one shoe fits all solution for addicts yet you appear confident AA is not obviously helpful overall.

Well yes, that is what my work around topics like Epidemiology trains me to do! In Epidemiology we realize that some things WILL help people. Some things will also NOT help people but will give them the impression that it did.

For example one of the effects we normalize for in Epidemiology is the simple fact that a certain % of people will get better anyway, even if they do absolutely nothing. This poses a problem for us in that if we treat them, it can APPEAR the treatment helped. When it in fact did nothing. And it CAN lead us to implement programmes that actually do nothing at all.

For example, if I got 1000 alcoholics this morning, and broke one of their kneecaps with a baseball bat, before telling all of them I would break the other knee if they ever drink again.............. There is a certain % of people who will come back 10 years later and claim that my approach cured them. The problem is, that despite their deep and emotional bias that I did in fact help.......... a % of them would have gotten better anyway if I had done absolutely nothing at all. If you simply told enough people to start at a yellow spot on a piece of card every time they got the urge to drink.... you will get SOME people writing back to you telling them it worked and you changed their lives.

There is a statistical reason people claim Homeopathy works, for example.

There were in the past, for example, many mid-wives who swore by certain practices during child birth. They too would have come out with empty lines like yours of "You do not need studies to know it works, you just need to have birthed a few babies!". But when meta-analysis was brought to bear on the subject it showed the practice was killing babies. There are people alive in the world today who would not have seen their first dawn had it not been for such practices and procedures and studies.

So in Epidemiology we look at the bigger picture. Not individual anecdote or testimony. We look at overall what a program, medicine, treatment plan or whatever does over a population of subjects, rather than individuals. And from there we answer the question "Can we of sound ethical mind openly recommend this as a treatment to people who genuinely need our help, believing in good conscience that it is likely to actually help them in any way?".

And the figures I have seen, which are out there despite your not having seen many of them yourself, and include figures AA themselves have released too not just people testing them from the outside........... are such that no, I could not in good conscience offer it GENERALLY as a treatment plan to anyone. At best I would, like happened to you, offer it when all else has failed with a "Well look, this helps SOME people, even if not many" mentality.

The methodologies of Epidemiology allow us to step outside our own biases and look at the big picture overall, and ask some very important questions. Which is a different place to come from than someone, like yourself, who is on the inside and HAS been helped by such a system.

Drumpot wrote: »

A lot of scientific research is basically one vested interest group paying scientists to investigate something and they publish only the elements that benefit them.

That is true. That is why we need things like "Meta Analysis" which seek to amalgamate studies from disparate sources into a useful whole. Meta approaches have given us so much in the past. But yes the "non publishing" problem is indeed a big problem we are aware of in science. And many people are working towards mediating for it. People like Ben Goldacre for example champion solutions where people should be forced to publish. And they have to register their study BEFORE conducting it, and then be retrospectively forced to publish it later (even if abandoned ultimately) regardless of the results, or how much the people who financed the study suddenly want the results buried.

It is not a perfect world in science by any means. But it is VASTLY better than taking individual anecdote or testimony. And the methodologies are ever improving to hamper the effects of individual bias, or the agenda of people sponsoring the studies.

All too often people bring up the flaws to discount the results in science. And I can understand where they are coming from. But the simple fact remains that even WITH the flaws, the methodologies of science and Epidemiology are so vastly superior to anything else we currently have to work with.......... that their well meant concerns are not that relevant other than as a motivation to ever improve the system.

But as I say, the figures for the efficacy of AA are remarkably poor. Whether the figures come from external studies or, in fact, from AA themselves! And I doubt AA themselves could be accused of a bias to make themselves look bad.

Drumpot wrote: »

But in the absence of reliable data

That is the thing though, there is no ABSENCE of data. Sure there is a lot more data I would like us to have, but that is far from an ABSENCE of data. There is data there. A lot of it. Including from AA themselves. But more we would like! But as one article points out we have a situation where "AA forbids researchers from conducting clinical studies of its millions of members. But the organization does conduct its own random surveys every three years."

And that is AWFUL. Really. Imagine medicine companies suddenly started selling products and refusing to allow anyone external to test or study their efficacy? NO treatment program is perfect, and so it should be studied and improved in an ongoing fashion. To close your doors to such inquiry and study, is even more "cult like" than anything else you have thus far described as "cult like" yourself. It is medically and professionally IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to refuse to allow a program that purports to treat a sick and vulnerable group, be tested and evaluated for efficacy.

AA leaked its own figures one time about their effectiveness and came out with a result of 5%. Anyone who knows medical statistics will recognize the number 5%. It happens to also be the success rate of doing NOTHING AT ALL in many areas of medicine and treatment.

And this is AAs own figures here, not some biased third party. But what studies HAVE been done by external parties have done nothing to call AAs own figures into question here, but validate them. Studies that validate that AAs figures are no better than the rates of spontaneous remission we expect. And plenty of others including a 2006 Cochrane review which found no benefits to AA at all.

AA's own analysis was that 50% of all those who try AA leave within 90 days, which they describe as cause for 'concern'. Their own data shows that is actually optimistic. In the 12-year period shown, 19% remain after 30 days, 10% remain after 90 days, and 5% remain after a year. The retention rate of AA is 5% after one year.

Here, in the interim, are some excerpts from a Scientific American Article on AA:
"After reviewing the literature, we found that AA may help some people overcome alcoholism, especially if they also get some professional assistance, but the evidence is far from overwhelming, in part because of the nature of the program."
"Most studies evaluating the efficacy of AA are not definitive; for the most part, they associate the duration of participation with success in quitting drinking but do not show that the program caused that outcome. "
"Further, about 40 percent of AA members drop out during the first year (although some may return), raising the possibility that the people who remain may be the ones who are most motivated to improve."

And worse, the unregulated nature of AA has been shown to allow some people running it to claim that AA should be exclusive to seeking other professional help. Even one of the original AA manuals suggested this. "They are to accomplish these difficult goals without professional help." and as Scientific American pointed out:

"56 percent were abstinent versus 39 percent of those who did not see a therapist—an indication that seeing a professional is also beneficial."

So AA has been used to work AGAINST things in the past that actually do help.

Drumpot wrote: »

I don’t feel going to a meeting would be beneficial if I and others hadn’t had the steps to help us change.

But as I said, it still would be beneficial. Because pretty much everything in your posts so far, and pretty much everything I have read and studied about AA in the past, suggests that going to such meetings........ and becoming involved with a mutually supportive social group of peers sharing essentially the same issue........... is going to be beneficial even if the 12 steps were a completely nonsense load of metaphysical tosh.

But think about it statistically for a moment. The low success rates AA offer are, all the same, pretty consistent from group to group as far as I know. However the unregulated nature of AA means, as you have acknowledged yourself, that one meeting can be VASTLY different from the next. How each group uses and interprets the 12 steps can be massively different from one group to the next, even one night in the same group to the next depending on who "leads" the meeting(s).

So....... if the implementation and interpretation of the 12 steps is varying wildly......... but the success rate is not............ then this is HIGHLY suggestive that whatever benefit is being accrued from AA as a whole..... the 12 steps themselves have little to do with it. So the benefit lies elsewhere. And as I keep saying I think that benefit comes from the simple fact that AA is a mutually supportive social peer group of understanding, welcoming people who not only understand your pain and issues, but share them.

Drumpot

As you said, I don't reflect AA or suggest that its a programme that works, I am an anecdotal example that doesn't prove AA works. I have no problem with that, I suppose I am not sure what benefit this information is to a suffering alcoholic. I feel I have provided information that shows going to meetings alone wouldn't of made as much a positive impact on my life , particularly if there was no steps, but for whatever reason it looks like this doesn't appear to be valued on some scientific level that I don't understand.

When scientific research hasn't actually provided a definitive solution, its hard to value its position when it dismisses what I feel has been a very positive influence in my life. Shooting down something with facts and research might of discouraged me from joining AA which I feel can be dangerous because we just dont know if I would of gotten well had I not gone to AA when I did. Intellectualising such a dangerous topic hasn't always helped me and the state I was in when I went to AA was important.

I am not sure I am completely understanding your studies (just holding my hand up by the way, not making insinuations). In 5 years I have never been part of any AA study and I would not be included (nor anybody I know) in that study. I don't understand how that could be reliable data to use in backing up conclusions you have found. Again, perhaps its just I don't understand so please don't think I am dismissing it outright.

I have great interest in science, particularly about the universe. But I feel an objective standpoint is that what is accepted today could be completely disproven tomorrow. Somebody confidently stated "science always corrects itself" which in itself sounds like a contradictory stance for a scientist to take which is basically "this is the best we have and statistically less likely to be AS wrong as somebody not using scientific approach". But I do feel people within science can be victims of hubris with the "science corrects itself" and unbias defence. Perhaps that just a layman stance, but personally I think to not challenge anything man made (science, maths) that's designed to understand life/universe is not healthy. Right now I am open to exploring positive ways of enhancing my life, but I am not sure if investigating what I feel is half baked information on AA would be beneficial.

When I watch my science shows, listening to respected scientists, I love their explanations but I question (healthy cynicism IMO) the validity of some of their findings. Sometimes (like in the case of your explanation), I don't fully understand why they have come to their conclusions, but what I question how they can be so confident about certain assumptions. An example is the recent finding of potential life on a moon orbiting a planet which was initially not considered or thought possible. Now science can fall back on "well we corrected ourselves as soon as more accurate data was available" but I feel the same to the information that is available on AA. I dont believe there is enough information available to make accurate conclusions.

Maybe AA is a placebo or a "right place right time" program, I feel open to this as a possibility. But I suppose my experience of AA would tell me that there is zero data available (not sure where AA gets its own info either!) recording the people I know and have met because I haven't been part of any research and haven't heard of it. In short, I and people I met in AA are not recorded on any research so I am cynical about this kind of research telling me we just got lucky.

In terms of legitimate scientific organisations recommending AA, I have no issue with that. The absence of reliable data IMO would make it unwise, but I suppose I feel there are plenty of recommended suggestions that are reliant on the competency of a professional and honesty of big pharma. I also think that while you can argue your chances of success increase with trusting science or research, I haven't experienced that at all so I am sure you can understand my cynicism. I went to many doctors and professional therapists who didn't have a clue how to help me and one in particularly who medicated the hell out of me. Conventional wisdom seems to be that popping a pill is the first course of action but there is little to no understanding of how that will effect each individual in the same sense that you cant quantify who AA will and wont work for. I am not on any medication as we speak and don't feel anti depressants or sleeping tablets were a positive in my life personally. They were destructive and could of led to my suicide and I'm not sure if this fact is recorded anywhere that could provide accurate data on the dangers of medication..

I suppose it feels like you are saying "AA isn't really helping statistically anymore then doing nothing" which I am not convinced would of been anyway helpful to me 5-6 years ago. I tried doing nothing and other support groups that didn't help so I dont understand what the value of that comment would of been to me back then! While this kind of information may prove in the future to be helpful in finding a better solution to alcoholics, in the absence of a definitive solution I find even a 5% success rate and the hope one can get from AA better then nothing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

I suppose I am not sure what benefit this information is to a suffering alcoholic.

None, which is why I said earlier that I could pull out the figures but as I said "I am not sure it would be any use to either of us". And I also said "That you as an individual get a lot from it however, is something no one can or should take away from!"

All that REALLY matters though is there is a wealth of options out there for someone in your position, and that you openly tried them all until finding the one that worked best for you. There is no science or philosophy or narrative that can be more important than that on the individual level.

I just think there are two conversations worth having. There is the conversation about what you PERSONALLY get from it. And there is the conversation about the efficacy and utility and risks and harms of having AA in society as a whole. And there is very little two way traffic between those two conversations.

What is useful to a "suffering alcoholic" is there are people working in fields like epidemiology in our world, evaluating all kinds of treatments for efficacy, in a way that means when the next alcoholic presents themselves looking for our help.......... we send them first and foremost towards the treatments we have good expectations will actually help them.

And we should have no other agenda than that, or above that!

Drumpot wrote: »

Shooting down something with facts and research might of discouraged me from joining AA which I feel can be dangerous because we just dont know if I would of gotten well had I not gone to AA when I did.

That is true for sure! No argument from me. But what I would ADD to it is that there are numbers of people who think AA is representative of group therapy as a whole. And they go to it under the impression it should work for them. In fact some places, like the US, often have Judges in Court hand down orders that certain people MUST go to AA.

So people go along fully expecting it to be useful and effective, even though their own figures suggest a 5% success rate akin to spontaneous remission. And that is EQUALLY dangerous to what you call dangerous. Because if AA fails that 95%..... are they then likely to give up on group therapy as a whole.......... such as therapies with better results.... or a more open door policy to review and change and study?

Our target as a society should not be to send any given alcoholic to AA just because AA is a household name. It should be to evaluate ALL treatments (whether they like it or not, for shame AA for closing the doors to that) and send each given alcoholic first to the treatment that A) seems to best fit them and statistically shows the best potential for a result.

Drumpot wrote: »

I have great interest in science, particularly about the universe. But I feel an objective standpoint is that what is accepted today could be completely disproven tomorrow.

I have heard that said a lot, but it is rarely the case in reality. At the frontiers of science some specifics within any given context change a lot. But something being considered "accepted" before later being "disproven" is remarkably rare. Generally established Scientific Theory remains consistent, even if minor specifics within it change a lot.

A good example of that is biological history of human evolution. Nothing about the theory of our origins and general evolutionary line has changed in a LONG time. But specifics such as specifically how long ago our line rose........ changes relatively often.

It is like a Mini and an Audi looking very different, but internally the basics of the combustion engine remain pretty much constant. (Ok dont know cars that well to be honest, but it is constant enough to make the analogy hold).

As for questioning the validity of some scientific findings.... keep doing that! It would not BE science if we didn't!. You are clearly an individual capable of thought, and conversation, and patience, and open consideration of the other. And that is exactly the kind of person the world of science requires. Even if only as a lay outsider with no interest of ever working in the field.

Drumpot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None, which is why I said earlier that I could pull out the figures but as I said "I am not sure it would be any use to either of us". And I also said "That you as an individual get a lot from it however, is something no one can or should take away from!"

All that REALLY matters though is there is a wealth of options out there for someone in your position, and that you openly tried them all until finding the one that worked best for you. There is no science or philosophy or narrative that can be more important than that on the individual level.

I just think there are two conversations worth having. There is the conversation about what you PERSONALLY get from it. And there is the conversation about the efficacy and utility and risks and harms of having AA in society as a whole. And there is very little two way traffic between those two conversations.

What is useful to a "suffering alcoholic" is there are people working in fields like epidemiology in our world, evaluating all kinds of treatments for efficacy, in a way that means when the next alcoholic presents themselves looking for our help.......... we send them first and foremost towards the treatments we have good expectations will actually help them.

And we should have no other agenda than that, or above that!



That is true for sure! No argument from me. But what I would ADD to it is that there are numbers of people who think AA is representative of group therapy as a whole. And they go to it under the impression it should work for them. In fact some places, like the US, often have Judges in Court hand down orders that certain people MUST go to AA.

So people go along fully expecting it to be useful and effective, even though their own figures suggest a 5% success rate akin to spontaneous remission. And that is EQUALLY dangerous to what you call dangerous. Because if AA fails that 95%..... are they then likely to give up on group therapy as a whole.......... such as therapies with better results.... or a more open door policy to review and change and study?

Our target as a society should not be to send any given alcoholic to AA just because AA is a household name. It should be to evaluate ALL treatments (whether they like it or not, for shame AA for closing the doors to that) and send each given alcoholic first to the treatment that A) seems to best fit them and statistically shows the best potential for a result.



I have heard that said a lot, but it is rarely the case in reality. At the frontiers of science some specifics within any given context change a lot. But something being considered "accepted" before later being "disproven" is remarkably rare. Generally established Scientific Theory remains consistent, even if minor specifics within it change a lot.

A good example of that is biological history of human evolution. Nothing about the theory of our origins and general evolutionary line has changed in a LONG time. But specifics such as specifically how long ago our line rose........ changes relatively often.

It is like a Mini and an Audi looking very different, but internally the basics of the combustion engine remain pretty much constant. (Ok dont know cars that well to be honest, but it is constant enough to make the analogy hold).

As for questioning the validity of some scientific findings.... keep doing that! It would not BE science if we didn't!. You are clearly an individual capable of thought, and conversation, and patience, and open consideration of the other. And that is exactly the kind of person the world of science requires. Even if only as a lay outsider with no interest of ever working in the field.

A few years ago, I would of struggled to have such an open conversation on AA. Maybe this is an example of "right time" conversation where I am open to the program being challenged without my own personal sobriety feeling threatened. I am also comfortable saying "I don't know, maybe you are right" without feeling like I should just ditch AA and seeing what happens. I find it liberating accepting that there maybe better options available to me in the future but right now I will plod along with what works until something better comes along.

I don't get the benefit of forcing a person into AA because I have found that wanting to find the solution (searching and giving that solution a good try) to be paramount for my "success". AA literature would suggest that in the early years, when they only "recruited" the worst of the worst, the success rate was much higher. This would indicate to me that being desperate and feeling hopeless after exhausting most avenues can be lead to a mindset that is more open to being compliant and possibly improve your chances of AA working. Part of the problem, like we discussed is the non regulation of who is helping who and the different interpretations of AA teachings which can lead to an inconsistent program for different people .

I've actually wondered if I would have the intelligence/patience to find a career in science. I'm not sure if I have the discipline or qualities to achieve a feat. This could partially be down to low self esteem and to my negative memories of school where I struggled to study because of lack of sleep and chronic depression. I suppose I feel I am good learning from personal experience but I would not consider myself good at sitting down and reading facts and figures.

I am actually in a really good place, exploring all opportunities - singing, acting and other things. I would like to find a hobby and/or profession I really enjoy. I suppose in the scientific world I haven't seriously investigated if there are jobs I would enjoy.

smacl

Drumpot wrote: »

I've actually wondered if I would have the intelligence/patience to find a career in science.

I think if you have a genuine deep interest in any subject patience isn't really an issue and while the role of intelligence might influence how fast you progress, I don't think it is a blocking factor. A much loved brother in-law of mine never did his leaving, went back to college to study archaeology in his 50s and now with a masters under his belt is dithering whether to do a PhD. Huge amount of work, but if the work is a pleasure it is always doable.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

A few years ago, I would of struggled to have such an open conversation on AA. Maybe this is an example of "right time" conversation where I am open to the program being challenged without my own personal sobriety feeling threatened.

Yea, if I had even the first inkling you were not in that place I would not have entered into this discussion with you either. Your style of writing, and immersion in the topic, and openness to discourse, and your maturity in having something clearly dear to you questioned openly........... led me to believe it was not thin ice. Glad to see I was not wrong! As I certainly would not want to enter this conversation with someone who I suspect could be harmed by it.

But rather than thinking you could be harmed by it, I think you are in the position to rationally distill what WAS useful from it, from what likely did nothing at all, and take the good with you going forward. And that is a great position in which to have worked yourself, and you deserve all the related praise and respect for having gotten there.

But lighten the mood with a sound analogy, but one chosen for it's absurdity. Imagine all the posts you have written so far on the subject, but replace "AA" with "hitting myself over the head with a banana".

Then think of sentences of the form "It would have been dangerous for me to talk to you years ago, as I might not have then tried hitting myself over the head with a banana, and found it worked for me!"

Ok as I said that is deliberately being absurd to lighten the mood a bit, so I hope you take the humor in the spirit intended!

But the core take away from it should be that while we would recognize, and not want to take away from, the efficacy in that guys life of hitting himself over the head with a banana........... we can still have a SEPARATE conversation, that should not take away from the first, about how the data shows little benefit for alcoholics in general from yellow-flora-facial-flagellation and how much data shows it is not generally effective at all for all that many people.

And such a conversation could ask "well if yellow-flora-facial-flagellation is unlikely to have helped him, but he clearly HAS been helped, is it possible there were other factors in play that we could distill and learn from, and maybe even implement with even more efficacy elsewhere?".

Drumpot wrote: »

I am actually in a really good place, exploring all opportunities - singing, acting and other things. I would like to find a hobby and/or profession I really enjoy. I suppose in the scientific world I haven't seriously investigated if there are jobs I would enjoy.

Do not know if you mentioned, or did I just not notice, your age. You write like someone much older than someone I would picture in the early stages of finding a career. I know it is rude to ask but....

Well done on the acting. I suffered from shyness in my early and middle years and through a few different programs and methodologies I overcame it. Or at least buried it in a fashion that means it is functionally and effectively gone. And one of the highlights of this was the ONE time I did acting. Three nights in a row on stage in front of 300 people each night. One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest. Even then I do not think I could ever Sing in front of people I am not THAT cured

Drumpot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea, if I had even the first inkling you were not in that place I would not have entered into this discussion with you either. Your style of writing, and immersion in the topic, and openness to discourse, and your maturity in having something clearly dear to you questioned openly........... led me to believe it was not thin ice. Glad to see I was not wrong! As I certainly would not want to enter this conversation with someone who I suspect could be harmed by it.

But rather than thinking you could be harmed by it, I think you are in the position to rationally distill what WAS useful from it, from what likely did nothing at all, and take the good with you going forward. And that is a great position in which to have worked yourself, and you deserve all the related praise and respect for having gotten there.

But lighten the mood with a sound analogy, but one chosen for it's absurdity. Imagine all the posts you have written so far on the subject, but replace "AA" with "hitting myself over the head with a banana".

Then think of sentences of the form "It would have been dangerous for me to talk to you years ago, as I might not have then tried hitting myself over the head with a banana, and found it worked for me!"

Ok as I said that is deliberately being absurd to lighten the mood a bit, so I hope you take the humor in the spirit intended!

But the core take away from it should be that while we would recognize, and not want to take away from, the efficacy in that guys life of hitting himself over the head with a banana........... we can still have a SEPARATE conversation, that should not take away from the first, about how the data shows little benefit for alcoholics in general from yellow-flora-facial-flagellation and how much data shows it is not generally effective at all for all that many people.

And such a conversation could ask "well if yellow-flora-facial-flagellation is unlikely to have helped him, but he clearly HAS been helped, is it possible there were other factors in play that we could distill and learn from, and maybe even implement with even more efficacy elsewhere?".



Do not know if you mentioned, or did I just not notice, your age. You write like someone much older than someone I would picture in the early stages of finding a career. I know it is rude to ask but....

Well done on the acting. I suffered from shyness in my early and middle years and through a few different programs and methodologies I overcame it. Or at least buried it in a fashion that means it is functionally and effectively gone. And one of the highlights of this was the ONE time I did acting. Three nights in a row on stage in front of 300 people each night. One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest. Even then I do not think I could ever Sing in front of people I am not THAT cured

If I decide to share our discussion with other AA members (who I feel can actually discuss it rationally) I will tell them that some scientist told me to replace AA with hitting myself over the head with a banana.

Its actually a good way of explaining your stance on AA.

I didn't mean to make out I am young cause I'm not , hitting 40 in a few months. For a long time I had the emotional sobriety of a young teenager so maybe theres still a bit of that in my posting!

Wow, 300 people, that's ridiculously impressive, well done on that. Funny coincidence that it was "one flew over the cuckoos nest" because I was only marking that movie down on my IMDB app 3 days ago as "one to watch". I know this was just a complete random chance (that you picked out one thing that I just happened to be thinking of in the last few days), but despite not being particularly religious I find these random things interesting. I presume it can be rationally explained away, but it sort of feels a little like I was meant to have this conversation with you.

I'm just at the exploratory phase on the acting. Did a 4 week beginner course before Christmas. Have tried being extra in things over the last few years, but I'm not pushing myself hard to commit to anything (not sure if that's good or bad!).

Drumpot

smacl wrote: »

I think if you have a genuine deep interest in any subject patience isn't really an issue and while the role of intelligence might influence how fast you progress, I don't think it is a blocking factor. A much loved brother in-law of mine never did his leaving, went back to college to study archaeology in his 50s and now with a masters under his belt is dithering whether to do a PhD. Huge amount of work, but if the work is a pleasure it is always doable.

Thanks, that's actually really encouraging. I will keep that in my back pocket when I am going through one of my "time to review where I am at and if I should try something new" reflection that I have from time to time.

nozzferrahhtoo

Haha I can not decide, if that were all you took away from the conversation to tell other AA people about, would that make me terribly sad or terribly happy I am somewhat overly proud of the phrase "yellow-flora-facial-flagellation"

I won't bore you with my equally clinical take on life coincidences But yea OFOTCN manages to be a great book, a great film, and even a great stage play. The lead actor on stage with us was someone who had appeared quite a few times in Fair City. So it was even more nerve wracking sharing the stage with a semi professional actor. All amateurs is nerve racking enough. But someone who has actually studied acting at the level of university just upped my angst.

beefburrito

AA is ok to sit down and listen,share ones experience strength and hope.
It's full of contradiction.
It doesn't approve of taking your power back and being confident with managing your own life.

It's success rate is around 3% so in effect it's a failure for 97% of participants.

Anyone who can kick the booze and stay sober is very resilient.
I'v seen professor's, psychotherapist, doctors unable to grasp sobriety.

So getting well has more to do with being emotionally strong rather than accidemically strong.

I only go to around one meeting every week,and I hang out with more rational members rather than the big book crew and God people.

I respect them but they're too full on at times.