Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

1…910121415…21

Comments

  • #332
    mazcon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 112 ✭✭mazcon


    I think what is sometimes lost in all the discussion of AA is the fact that it is not a professional service and this is stated explicity in its traditions. Doctors, counsellors, psychologists etc may attend the meeting but they are there only in their capacity as a fellow alcoholic. The anonymous aspect means that an individual's profession is left outside along with their surname. For those who are saying that it is a support group and that the effectiveness lies in the supportive nature of the meetings...that is the whole point. It began as two alcoholics sharing their story with each other and finding a level of understanding that they had never experienced before. They found that this mutual support helped them get and stay sober and from that beginning the fellowship began. The 12 steps are a narrative of how they achieved and continued to maintain sobriety and are presented as suggestions for other alcoholics to try.


  • #333
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    And you don't think that's religious? Even supposing you put your trust in "nature" or evolution, you are anthropomorphising it by believing it will help you overcome an addiction.
    Where's the anthropomorphism?

    Humans have evolved in such a way that the aforementioned practices have an effect on the human brain.

    No ascription of human qualities to the universe there; and no magic man in the clouds acting like the wizard of Oz granting hearts or courage to addicts.

    It's as religious as Darwin's theory of evolution is religious.
    gaynorvader wrote: »
    The term "higher power" generally doesn't just mean more powerful, it means more authoritative, a better being all round, etc.
    Where are you getting that from?

    Also, it's "god", or "higher power", as "we understood him"; if that's how how you understand "higher power" then who am I to argue with you (about that particular point)?

    That's not my interpretation of "higher power" - I outlined my understanding of it - but, if that's how you understand it, then.....absolutely nothing, that's your understanding.


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Honestly, I think the steps by themselves, without the allusions to a higher power, would probably help some people by themselves. Self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc are not bad things and are beneficial to anyone, be they an addict or not.
    Absolutely, they could be beneficial to everyone. I've said it myself - not on here - people who are not addicts could benefit greatly by working the steps.

    I don't disagree about "the issue" - of the "higher power" - using the word "God" lends itself to so many preconceptions; but that isn't the fault of the word. "God" is an English term, that wasn't used up until - someone help me out with the centuries and stuff.

    The reason they put in "as we understood him" (btw, I disagree with the use of the male personal pronoun) was bcos addicts will try and find any loophole to get out of taking steps towards recovery - obviously not completely literally, bcos there are addicts in recovery; but in the initial phase of recovery, some addicts, who may not have chosen to be there - sent by the court, co-erced by family, etc. etc. - will look for excuses. What better excuse than, "God is a load of bollix!".

    But, it's not "God" as was preached to you from an altar, it's "God as we understood him" - maybe better wording would avoid issues; but it is, in actuality, an individuals interpretation of "God".


    As mentioned, that can be a completely naturalistic, scientific interpretation; I use the term "pantheism" - the universe is god; no magic man, no anthroporphism, just straight up neuroscience - of which I know very little.


    Some people might attribute it to a magic man in the sky; that may be bcos they have even less of an understanding of neuroscience than I do - and my understanding is seriously negligible.

    But, if they use a "god of the gaps" to fill in the blanks and that helps them stay sober, then AA or the 12-steps makes allowances for that - addicts are trixy little hobbitses btw!



    Apologies for going on. I will be the first to accept the limitations of the 12-step program and I will highlight the shortcomings of it:

    it should be "God as we understood God", not "God as we understood him"


    but if unfair criticisms are levelled at the program, I'll also try to clarify any misunderstandings. Currently, I don't attend any meetings and am not an "active member" of the 12-step program. I do hope that my posts have been rational though.



    I would, wholeheartedly, agree that every addict would benefit from an empirical investigation into the 12-step program - there are a lot of issues that would have to be addressed with such a study (which I would love to discuss). If any agency could secure a research grant to do so, then I could - almost - guarantee that every member of a 12-step program would be supportive of it (there would be a few who would oppose it, such is human nature).



    Again, apologies for prattling on!


  • #334
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    mazcon wrote: »
    I think what is sometimes lost in all the discussion of AA is the fact that it is not a professional service and this is stated explicity in its traditions. Doctors, counsellors, psychologists etc may attend the meeting but they are there only in their capacity as a fellow alcoholic. The anonymous aspect means that an individual's profession is left outside along with their surname. For those who are saying that it is a support group and that the effectiveness lies in the supportive nature of the meetings...that is the whole point. It began as two alcoholics sharing their story with each other and finding a level of understanding that they had never experienced before. They found that this mutual support helped them get and stay sober and from that beginning the fellowship began. The 12 steps are a narrative of how they achieved and continued to maintain sobriety and are presented as suggestions for other alcoholics to try.

    In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".

    Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.


  • #335
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".

    Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.

    Brian, where are the alternatives from the scientists, researchers etc that you speak of ?

    You don't expect those suffering from heart or lung disease to do their own research . So why put that burden on alcoholic or drug addicts ?

    And this is the nub of the issue - can you offer a credible alternative ? Actually drop the credible, just any alternative .

    If there was a 'medical' cure do you honestly believe we wouldn't grab on to it ?


  • #336
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".

    Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.

    Brian - I have been under the care of psychiatric services, general hospital services and counselling services. The general hospital cares only about medically getting me through the DT's safely, while referring me to a psychiatric liaison nurse. Said nurse will refer me to the psychiatric services again. Psychiatric services will treat the depression I present with, or the suicidal thoughts, but they can't address the alcoholism - as they don't seem to know how - apart from to tell me that people who attend AA 'generally' do better.
    Why are they not finding a solution?????????? Because no research is being plunged into the causes and treatment for alcoholism.

    AA has a line in their book which is a little disheartening but it reads along the lines of 'the medical profession has yet to find a cure for alcoholism, but if they do, we will applaud them; until they do, we are here to try to help'. Something like that, not a direct quote.

    You don't seem to realise the amount of people who come to AA through PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Thanks to the demon drink, it renders some of us a wee bit mad in the head at times, so we tend to have a propensity towards coming into contact with the medical profession.

    I can guarantee you, if there was some effective solution, people, including AA members, would be running in their droves for an easier solution.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    marienbad wrote: »
    Brian, where are the alternatives from the scientists, researchers etc that you speak of ?

    You don't expect those suffering from heart or lung disease to do their own research . So why put that burden on alcoholic or drug addicts ?

    And this is the nub of the issue - can you offer a credible alternative ? Actually drop the credible, just any alternative .

    If there was a 'medical' cure do you honestly believe we wouldn't grab on to it ?
    I think CBT is one possible alternative, as someone else mentioned in this thread. A family member of mine used it to address their gambling problem and, as far as I know, they haven't gambled in a few years. From my own personal perspective though, they could do with further treatment to address some of the deeper lying issues.

    I'm not sure what the efficacy rates are for treatment programs which use CBT but, from what little I do know about it, it sounds like a potentially effective approach. Obviously it's not 100% effective, or else the entire world would know about it by now. I'm also not sure where CBT is offered in Ireland bcos when I was there I didn't need it. The 12-steps, in particular meditation, kept me clean and sober.


  • #338
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".

    Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.
    The question that might be worth posing is, what part of the 12-step approach is it that you think doesn't work, and should be ditched?

    Also, what is the current "best practice" for the treatment of addiction, to which AA should be aligned. I'm talking about the actual best practice not the idea of continually carrying out research - bcos AA is not a research organisation. It is an amateur organisation made up of volunteers. The point being, how do you know that the 12-step approach doesn't represent current best practices for treating addiction? Even if these were happened upon by chance.


  • #339
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    roosh wrote: »
    Nope, you should be referring to more than just the text of the 12-steps and, on occasion, the 12 principles.

    Again: the question of this thread is whether AA is religion and in answering that question I do not apologize for referring directly to the 12 steps that make up the very core of those meetings.

    Again: Not only was the program invented by nut job christians, but the 12 steps also mention god. And not only that but they lend attributes to that god that are IMMEDIATELY recognizable to anyone even passingly familiar with monotheistic thought.

    The fetid desperation with which you want to distance yourself from that merely belies the truth of my claims. It certainly has not rebutted them in any way. But do keep floundering.

    "The big book" perhaps, or the book entitled 12-steps and 12-traditions, both of which serve to illuminate both texts further and give a deeper understanding of both texts. Attending some meetings might also prove beneficial, even if it is only to better understand the actual dynamics of meetings.
    roosh wrote: »
    This has been demonstrated.

    Not to me it has not. Not on this thread. And most certainly not by you. The only way to make these things compatible is to simply outright ignore half of what these things say. If YOU want to make "god" mean something else in the 12 steps then more power to you. But you do this through nothing more than the application of a mix of your imagination and the insertion of your head into some sand.

    Again if this works for you.... GREAT. Go for it. No one wants to stop you. But I will not be cajoled into ignoring the pretense that is involved in the attempt.
    roosh wrote: »
    The only thing about the steps which might make them religious is the use of the word "God"

    That is, as I have said, simply false. The 12 steps do more than use the word "god". They discuss and give attributes to this god that EXACTLY match what we are familiar with from monotheism. Denying this is just desperation and a falsehood. Neither of which I am about to fall for thanks.
    roosh wrote: »
    Ah, so is this the source of the idea that groups get together and just pick and choose which steps to follow, or that some groups don't bother with them at all?

    All I am doing here is passing on what others have told me. When I enter forums and complain about the content of the 12 steps I am told quite often by people using AA that they do not really bother with the 12 steps at all. Some are told of their existence on day 1 and never see them again. Some have them stuck on the wall but no one even mentions them. While OTHER meetings stick to them religiously.

    So I am anecdotally getting massively conflicting feedback as to how these meetings are run. They appear to me to be entirely ad hoc, unregulated and down to the whim of whoever is organizing them. You say "In meetings the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start or "maybe in introduction".". Maybe in YOUR meeting(s) they are. But I get just as many anecdotes saying the exact opposite. Who am I to believe?

    And my question to those people, which has gone TOTALLY unanswered by those people, is if you divest an AA meeting of the tenets and texts of AA. Then how exactly is it still AA except for the name on the door? How is a 12 step program a 12 step program is no one uses the 12 steps? It makes no sense to me. Nor, from reading your floundering posts, to you either.
    roosh wrote: »
    Again, you are just demonstrating a superficial understanding by not knowing this, even after it has been explained.

    You appear to think that repetition of the word "superficial" makes a point for you in place of you actually making one, or failing to make one. Repeating that word over and over again is not going to make it true. It just makes you feel good about yourself as if you scored a point somehow in a competition that you appear to be the only competitor in.

    The thread is about whether AA is religious and the 12 steps in the text are very clearly expressly religious. Where the conversation has turned to the efficacy of the program however the fact is that how the meetings are run and implemented are so diverse that it is impossible to claim any efficacy at all, AAs own documents suggest an efficacy % that is no better than inaction, and there simply is not a shred of a jot of evidence to suggest that the "12 steps" help anyone.

    All we have at the end of the day is a social support group and an outlet. Both of which are great things, do not get me wrong! But the thread is not about social support or having an outlet. The thread is specifically about AA and no one.... very much less so you yourself.... has offered a single shred of data to suggest AA is anything more than just that: Another social support outlet.

    So you can throw around words like "superficial" and "ignore" and "lack of understanding" all you like to make it sound like other people are suffering from these things when in fact you are the only one who is. But not one point I have made has been rebutted. And not one concern I have raised has been addressed.
    roosh wrote: »
    Now, if some rogue addict decides to set up a meeting on their own and try to abuse the 12-step approach there is not much stopping them

    Which is one of the concerns I have raised by having an unregulated nonsense program that just anyone can start. Can you imagine if some pervert could just set up a gynecology at will without regulation or license? Or someone setting up a psychiatry practice on a whim in order to get access to needy and vulnerable people?

    We have regulations, best practice guidelines, licensing and more for a reason. If we genuinely want to help people we subscribe to these things and we not only evaluate the efficacy of our practices but we update those practices by iteration in the face of the results of those evaluations. We ensure that the people offering such assistance and medical practices and help are licensed and regulated and answer to a code of practice and conduct and a regulatory body.

    All I am suggesting is that if we are going to help the needy and vulnerable people in our society suffering from addiction then this too might be the best way to go about it. Even the most well meaning and well intentioned individual can cause more harm than good by blindly implementing a set of practices that they may not even understand, or may not be effective at all. Questions do have to be asked about the efficacy and effects of things like AA and I am concerned myself that with AA...... it simply it not being done.


  • #340
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Have you any evidence other than anecdotal that the AA meetings are run in the ad hoc manner you suggest ?


  • #341
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    marienbad wrote: »
    Have you any evidence other than anecdotal that the AA meetings are run in the ad hoc manner you suggest ?

    Well, a book which proscribes the rules under which an organisation is supposed to run is far stronger in terms of evidence than anecdote. So seeing as Nozz has access to the AA books on the 12 steps, yes he does have more than anecdote.

    In a similar vein do you have any evidence at all, apart from hearsay, that it's ok to run a 12 step programme without using the 12 steps?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Well, a book which proscribes the rules under which an organisation is supposed to run is far stronger in terms of evidence than anecdote. So seeing as Nozz has access to the AA books on the 12 steps, yes he does have more than anecdote.

    In a similar vein do you have any evidence at all, apart from hearsay, that it's ok to run a 12 step programme without using the 12 steps?

    Well then he/she will know how meetings are run. Assuming he has read as far as the 12 traditions!

    It's difficult to explain AA, but it's not like you proceed through a programme and get a degree or PHD at the end of it. There are many aspects being addressed, people coming from different histories, drinking habits etc.
    As my Beethoven appreciating old friend often says, 'I came into AA expecting to be given a sort of a prescription - now - you there - it's awful what you've done - I want you to stay off the drink for 6 weeks' Hee hee.

    You can have people as far ranging as possible in one meeting i.e. for e.g.:

    A 50 year old female nurse, who decided to get treatment when her children refused to talk to her.
    A 50 year old female teacher, who is sober 25 years, having first come into AA 25 years ago, following a threat that she would lose her job if she was ever caught drinking on the job again.
    An 18 year old, who has been drinking since he was 12, and has been in and out of jail since that age.
    A 32 year old qualified and experienced social worker, who is also a mother, and who has decided to try to stop, after her husband gave her an ultimatum.
    A 28 year old secretary, who had a panic attack and was advised to go to AA.
    A 70 year old man who was told by his doctor, to give up the auld drink.
    A 36 year old fella, who has held onto his job, but has been given a warning.
    The 40 year old priest.
    The 50 year old Buddhist
    The 22 year old atheist etc. etc. etc. etc. etc..............

    Meetings can have huge numbers sometimes. There really is no common denominator apart from alcoholism. Meetings however are essentially 'the same the world over'.


  • #343
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Well, a book which proscribes the rules under which an organisation is supposed to run is far stronger in terms of evidence than anecdote. So seeing as Nozz has access to the AA books on the 12 steps, yes he does have more than anecdote.

    In a similar vein do you have any evidence at all, apart from hearsay, that it's ok to run a 12 step programme without using the 12 steps?

    I don't follow you there, the book suggests how meeting should be run but Nozz continuously refers to people who have attended meetings and this has happened or that has happened . We will all agree that is anecdotal. Has he any evidence other that that.

    On the second point I have no knowledge of any 12 step programmes other than AA. But on AA yes I do - my own experience , and as that is direct I believe it is not anecdotal. I believe a few other posters involved in this thread have the same.


  • #344
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't follow you there, the book suggests how meeting should be run but Nozz continuously refers to people who have attended meetings and this has happened or that has happened . We will all agree that is anecdotal. Has he any evidence other that that.

    On the second point I have no knowledge of any 12 step programmes other than AA. But on AA yes I do - my own experience , and as that is direct I believe it is not anecdotal. I believe a few other posters involved in this thread have the same.

    It appears there are some people who would like to attend open meetings. I know that pretty much every month, there is an open meeting hosted around the country. I don't know whether Dublin would have them more frequently? It might help allay the fears/increase the understanding of AA by Nozz for e.g.?

    To be honest Nozz - it's not as remotely as cloak and dagger as you suggest. I have been at formal Open meetings, but I have also been at what would have been a closed meeting, where the secretary explained that the meeting would be 'Open' as a non-alcoholic, was bringing his sister to her first AA meeting (she's still sober today and I'm not!). Presumably they agreed this in advance with AA, but I can't confirm nor deny this. The reason it needs to be announced, is because if you're not an alcoholic, we won't 'share' as honestly with you. There is the spoken rule and unspoken rule of anonymity. There is a sort of mutual respect, where, people can get things off their chest, without fear nor judgment, nor penance. It is quite cathartic!

    Besides, if you tell a room of 'normal' people, what you'd be thinking, they'd be looking at you as if you had two heads and ringing the local psychiatric hospital. When you speak at an AA meeting, as an alcoholic, you get a lot of nodding heads while you're speaking.

    Clearly, and I'll give you this point, there is f all chance of recovery from alcoholism. I wouldn't dismiss AA though, unless you have an alternative.


  • #345
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Just to give an overview of AA meetings - this is just my own opinion ,others may differ.

    Its only purpose is to achieve a contented sobriety , to have a life where alcohol has no part, not thinking about it, not craving for it, not hanging on day after day pining for it.

    And the methodology I have choosen is AA - consisting of the 12 step programme, meetings, the main AA literature , sponsorship and an essential element (when able) is helping others when asked.

    In discussing anything there is little point in taking elements in isolation, even less taking individual meetings in isolation.

    You could go into a meeting in Ireland today and another one tomorrow and they would have nothing other that the reading of the step and 'how in works' at the start and one tradition at the end and the Lord's prayer , which you are free to ignore .

    To judge the meeting one should experience quite a few in a compressed time frame and ideally in the same area . Then you will see how in its own way it all fits together.

    To illustrate , I was advised when I started to go to 90 meeting in 90 days , seems hard but it is not compared to drink 8 hours a day or more every day. Against that what is 2 hours a day.

    But in doing that ones gets an idea of what is going on in the overall region,

    For example - In one area every Friday night is a first step meeting , except for the 1st Friday of the month which is an open meeting to the general public .

    At other groups they may have a designated day as a step meeting whereby they work through the steps or traditions sequentially . But any attendee can speak on any issue they choose.

    Other meetings may have a topic set out by an invited speaker and others may take it up or not as they so prefer.

    If it is known there are newcomers present the meeting usually reverts to a 1st step meeting or can be requested to tend in that direction.

    It should be remembered that most groups have a core membership that attends week in week out and they can unintentionally become cosy affairs
    as they can follow the stories like an on-going soap , but when a new dynamic enters such as a 1st timer or person returning after a slip or a person asking for help however coded than it is like a call to arms .

    I don't know of anyone attaining sobriety after a few meetings , it is no different than anything else - the more you put into it the you will get out of it.


  • #346
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    In fact, I brought my baby to an AA meeting (she was asleep, but was passed around the room), I saw another girl pop into a meeting with a baby asleep in a car-seat, and I was at another meeting where there was a child about 8 with her Dad - the Dad had brought a jigsaw with him for her to play with, but an hour is a long time for a child!. Obviously, I wasn't able to share openly with a little child in the room, but the Dad had sole custody of the child and had feck all choice other than drink or go to an AA meeting! They would be rare instances.


  • #347
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    marienbad wrote: »
    Have you any evidence other than anecdotal that the AA meetings are run in the ad hoc manner you suggest ?

    The simple fact that there is no regulation proves this already. Anyone can set up a meeting and call it AA. The simple fact that people, including on this thread, keep recommending you attend different meanings because they are all different supports the claim. Read what sopretty writes below with regards to how there is no set program at all.
    marienbad wrote: »
    We will all agree that is anecdotal.

    I do not recall for one moment suggesting otherwise. In fact I specifically acknowledged it in more than one post so far. All I have is one set of anecdote versus another set of anecdotes. And all I am saying on this thread is that raises some concerns with me. Concerns that are not being addressed in any way, and in fact appear to be actively prevented from being addressed.

    So I am not sure what point you think you are making here?

    The best people can do is tell me to attend meetings myself. There is two problems here. Firstly there is an assumption that I have not done so. And people should not assume to know what I have or have not done. Secondly whether I have or not, or do or not, or continue to or not, this will only add one more single anecdote to the pile. So I have people here deriding anecdote (not necessarily a bad thing) but making counter points to mine that are entirely based and steeped in it.

    At the end of the day if we purport to be helping people with addiction then all I am saying is that we should submit our processes to the rigours of evaluation and create a centralized and regulated program to ensure the program is not only implemented and controlled, but measured and improved. I am, as yet, failing to understand why this raised the hackles of the AA Zealots on the thread. Surely if people want to help others then they should be _welcoming_ evaluation and testing of their processes and claims to vindicate and improve them???
    sopretty wrote: »
    It's difficult to explain AA

    For you maybe, but not for everyone. We have explained it quite well I think. It is a social support group and time outlet, with a religious foundation and origin and run off a list of 12 steps that are blatantly religious.

    What is difficult to explain about that?

    AGAIN: It is a social support group and outlet. If you have an addiction then a social support group and outlet is likely to be a good thing (though there are some who suggest quite convincingly that many who attend AA a lot (we have for example one user here claiming to have gone to many 1000s of meetings) is merely exchanging one addiction for another).

    But what everyone has failed to do, especially on this thread, is show how AA specifically, or the 12 steps, or the "big book" can or has helped anyone. Outside of AA being a social support group and outlet.... what.... if anything.... is specifically good or useful about AA?
    sopretty wrote: »
    Meetings however are essentially 'the same the world over'.

    Evidence for THIS claim? I had not realized you have been to them all.


  • #348
    mazcon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 112 ✭✭mazcon


    AA is self-regulating through its 12 traditions
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The simple fact that there is no regulation proves this already. Anyone can set up a meeting and call it AA.
    Yes they can but Tradition 3 adds the proviso that
    Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group,provided that, as a group, they have no other
    affiliation.

    On the issue of meetings being run in an ad-hoc manner, this is also covered in the traditions. Tradition 4 states that

    With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.
    So each individual group is free to run the meeting as it sees fit but must remain within the basic paramaters of the AA programme.
    AA is not a professional service. It is and always has been, a peer support group run by alcoholics for alcoholics for the sole purpose of mutual support and recovery from alcoholism. Yes, it has archaic religious overtones which come from its roots in white, middle-class 1930s America. However, again the traditions explicitly refer to the fact that all beliefs and none are welcome and that sectarian religious beliefs are not promoted

    Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other
    affiliation.



    No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.



    Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire. But we may employ alcoholics where they are going to perform those services for which we might otherwise have to engage nonalcoholics. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual A.A. “12 Step” work is never to be paid for.
    One of the problems as I see it is that counselling and psychotherapy are not subject to statutory regulation in this country. Most counsellors and psychotherapists work within voluntary regulation of IACP or similar bodies but there is nothing, at the moment , to stop anyone setting up business and calling themselves a counsellor or psychotherapist. Until the professional services are subject to mandatory regulation it is unlikely that the voluntary sector will be. I would welcome regulation of both sectors but in its absence I feel that AA and the other 12 step groups are actually quite rigorous WRT self-regulation.


  • #349
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The simple fact that there is no regulation proves this already. Anyone can set up a meeting and call it AA. The simple fact that people, including on this thread, keep recommending you attend different meanings because they are all different supports the claim. Read what sopretty writes below with regards to how there is no set program at all.



    I do not recall for one moment suggesting otherwise. In fact I specifically acknowledged it in more than one post so far. All I have is one set of anecdote versus another set of anecdotes. And all I am saying on this thread is that raises some concerns with me. Concerns that are not being addressed in any way, and in fact appear to be actively prevented from being addressed.

    So I am not sure what point you think you are making here?

    The best people can do is tell me to attend meetings myself. There is two problems here. Firstly there is an assumption that I have not done so. And people should not assume to know what I have or have not done. Secondly whether I have or not, or do or not, or continue to or not, this will only add one more single anecdote to the pile. So I have people here deriding anecdote (not necessarily a bad thing) but making counter points to mine that are entirely based and steeped in it.

    At the end of the day if we purport to be helping people with addiction then all I am saying is that we should submit our processes to the rigours of evaluation and create a centralized and regulated program to ensure the program is not only implemented and controlled, but measured and improved. I am, as yet, failing to understand why this raised the hackles of the AA Zealots on the thread. Surely if people want to help others then they should be _welcoming_ evaluation and testing of their processes and claims to vindicate and improve them???



    For you maybe, but not for everyone. We have explained it quite well I think. It is a social support group and time outlet, with a religious foundation and origin and run off a list of 12 steps that are blatantly religious.

    What is difficult to explain about that?

    AGAIN: It is a social support group and outlet. If you have an addiction then a social support group and outlet is likely to be a good thing (though there are some who suggest quite convincingly that many who attend AA a lot (we have for example one user here claiming to have gone to many 1000s of meetings) is merely exchanging one addiction for another).

    But what everyone has failed to do, especially on this thread, is show how AA specifically, or the 12 steps, or the "big book" can or has helped anyone. Outside of AA being a social support group and outlet.... what.... if anything.... is specifically good or useful about AA?



    Evidence for THIS claim? I had not realized you have been to them all.

    Anyone can hang a shingle up in Ireland and call themselves guidance counsellor ,a gang of 4 can get together and call themselves Institute .
    That is the law ,or lack of it,in Ireland .AA is subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else.

    IF you find that a problem ( as I do ) then agitate to change the law , it is much quicker that one group at time.

    As regards attending different meetings proving the point they are all the same ! now you are really stretching it. Would you say just attend one football match or hurling match . Once you have seen one you have seen them all, of course not , because it is a variation of theme within a defined set of guidelines . So with AA - one meeting may be on the 1st step ,another on the 5th. One dealing with relapse or bereavement and the temptation to drink or re-integrating with family.


    As for you accepting your evidence is anecdotal , well if it is then why not stop using it . You would not accept in in any other thread.

    Do you agree direct experience, i.e attending oneself is not anecdotal ?

    As for the zealots in AA being opposes to this that and the other as you say, have you any evidence for that ? AA is working with professional bodies all the time , always has always will.

    And to dismiss So Pretty with a crass 'I hadn't realized you had been to them all '- If that is the standard you choose to apply how can you pass judgement on any? How many have you attended ?

    As for failing to show how AA has helped anyone - To borrow from Descartes - I am an atheist I am sober and I am in AA. So can we agree it has helped at least one ?


  • #350
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Nozz has been turned into a man of straw!

    Direct experience is practically by definition anecdotal.

    I don't think anyone on this thread has put forth the claim that AA has helped no one.
    With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience.

    This is an incredibly dangerous ideology. Any organisation that espouses this needs to change.


  • #351
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Nozz has been turned into a man of straw!

    Direct experience is practically by definition anecdotal.

    I don't think anyone on this thread has put forth the claim that AA has helped no one.



    This is an incredibly dangerous ideology. Any organisation that espouses this needs to change.

    Direct experience with regard to medical or addictive conditions is indeed anecdotal in the grand scheme of things ,but in the relationship between a psychologist/doctor/Councillor and a patient/addict it forms a significant part of the process.

    The point I am making is that saying I suffer from this condition or go to this meeting carries more weight that saying I know someone that suffers from this and goes to that meeting.

    As for the dangerous ideology - It is only an AA meeting if it follows the steps and traditions and the approved literature . Being run by the group conscience does not allow any fundamental changes to that , if it were so people would leave and go to the proper meeting down the road.

    What it means in the general run of things is that a group conscience meeting is called to change the time or date of a meeting , to elect a new secretary or some other 'housekeeping' issue.

    Bearing in mind all the scandals and abuses that have come to light in the in the last decades in all walks of society in this little country of ours has there been even one involving AA ?

    There is little interest in this country in getting to grips with alcoholism and drug addiction and until that changes and genuine alternatives are available I and others like me will just have to stick with AA or cold turkey or whatever works for us .

    There is not much more I can say so I will bow out at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    marienbad wrote: »
    Direct experience with regard to medical or addictive conditions is indeed anecdotal in the grand scheme of things ,but in the relationship between a psychologist/doctor/Councillor and a patient/addict it forms a significant part of the process.

    The point I am making is that saying I suffer from this condition or go to this meeting carries more weight that saying I know someone that suffers from this and goes to that meeting.

    As for the dangerous ideology - It is only an AA meeting if it follows the steps and traditions and the approved literature . Being run by the group conscience does not allow any fundamental changes to that , if it were so people would leave and go to the proper meeting down the road.

    What it means in the general run of things is that a group conscience meeting is called to change the time or date of a meeting , to elect a new secretary or some other 'housekeeping' issue.

    Bearing in mind all the scandals and abuses that have come to light in the in the last decades in all walks of society in this little country of ours has there been even one involving AA ?

    There is little interest in this country in getting to grips with alcoholism and drug addiction and until that changes and genuine alternatives are available I and others like me will just have to stick with AA or cold turkey or whatever works for us .

    There is not much more I can say so I will bow out at this stage.

    "Do what you feel is right." is never a good thing to hear as a guideline of a group. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.


  • #353
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    "Do what you feel is right." is never a good thing to hear as a guideline of a group. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

    The Simpsons got that right:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84MdfAox0Y


  • #354
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    "Do what you feel is right." is never a good thing to hear as a guideline of a group. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

    Not what I said .


  • #355
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    marienbad wrote: »
    Not what I said .

    I understand that, it was what the quote I called out as a dangerous ideology was saying as I understood it.
    I'm not trying to attack AA as a whole, just the parts of it that seem open to being corrupted or misused as they are brought up.


  • #356
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    mazcon wrote: »
    AA is self-regulating through its 12 traditions

    Yes they can but Tradition 3 adds the proviso that

    You are assuming that all these meetings adhere to those traditions in order for them to regulate them. Given there is no regulatory body assuring that this in fact occurs, you are making a circular argument. I simply am not confident at all that such is true. Hence I am asking the questions I am asking on this thread.... questions the simple asking of has clearly been putting the AA zealots into a tizzy.
    mazcon wrote: »
    Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group,provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.

    My point exactly. What makes AA "AA" then if it is nothing more than 2+ people who simply stick that name on the door? The definition you provide above simply says nothing at all. Let alone anything of any use. By this definition AA is simply whatever you stick that label on.

    But the reality is more than that. That AA is a 12 step program, the 12 steps of which are clearly theism not even thinly disguised.


  • #357
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    marienbad wrote: »
    Anyone can hang a shingle up in Ireland and call themselves guidance counsellor ,a gang of 4 can get together and call themselves Institute.

    And that is the very concern I am addressing. This is clearly NOT a good thing that you describe. This is why I think the better approach is not just to have a regulated and implemented set of best practices, but to openly measure the efficacy of those practices and modify them in a feedback loop based on those results.

    Never forget that a drowning person will drown their own rescuer if the rescuer is not properly trained to render aid. People getting together and simply sticking "AA" on the door are not properly trained. All the well meant desire to help in the world will not undo the damage a well meaning but misguided attempt to help can potentially cause.
    marienbad wrote: »
    IF you find that a problem ( as I do ) then agitate to change the law

    You assume I do not. Don't do that.
    marienbad wrote: »
    As regards attending different meetings proving the point they are all the same ! now you are really stretching it.

    I would be if that was what I said. I did not say that. So I am not sure what you think you are replying to. In fact the things I have been saying are the _exact opposite_ of how you have just misrepresented me.
    marienbad wrote: »
    As for you accepting your evidence is anecdotal , well if it is then why not stop using it

    I am not using it. I am acknowledging it. And I am acknowledging that much of it is directly contradictory. Which is, again, part of the actual concerns I am raising here.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Do you agree direct experience, i.e attending oneself is not anecdotal ?

    No I do not. It is still anecdotal. The source of the anecdote is just me rather than someone else.
    marienbad wrote: »
    As for failing to show how AA has helped anyone - To borrow from Descartes - I am an atheist I am sober and I am in AA. So can we agree it has helped at least one ?

    No not from that we can not. Change the sentence to see why. "I was sick, now I am well, and I took homeopathy". Does that in ANY WAY AT ALL suggest homeopathy did anything at all?

    As has been pointed out many times.... people go to AA because they desire an end to their use of alcohol. For many it is that desire alone that leads them to stop. What they are doing WHILE implementing that decision is incidental and coincidental. Correlation is NOT causation. Do not make the correlation-causation error. AAs own figures show a success rate of 5% which is the same rate as doing nothing at all. Which bears out my point.

    But even if it did help you.... that does not in any way answer a single concern I have raised. As I keep saying, AA is at the core of it a social support group and an outlet. Clearly therefore it will help SOME people. I would be a fool to suggest otherwise.... which is why I never did. Anywhere. Ever. Even a little.

    What I am suggesting is there is no reason to think any of the things.... except for being a support group and outlet.... that make AA what it is (their little Big Book bible, their 12 steps etc etc etc) have any effect at all. Nor has anyone here even attempted to suggest they do.... as they fall over themselves to distance themselves from the things the 12 steps actually say.


  • #358
    mazcon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 112 ✭✭mazcon


    AA does not claim to be anything other than a peer support group of alcoholics for alcoholics supporting each other in their efforts to get and stay sober. It does not claim to be a professional treatment. As I said in a previous post the entire sector is largely unregulated which is not the fault of the sector but of the government. As a psychotherapist and as a member of Alanon and an adult sponsor of Alateen I would welcome regulation.


  • #359
    mazcon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 112 ✭✭mazcon


    The 12 Steps are suggested as an aid to recovery. They can be broken broadly into three sections; steps 1-3 involve identifying the areas of one's life that one has no control over and to recognising how holding on to an illusion of control is contributing to the chaos being experienced. Steps 4-9 involve becoming self-aware, recognising what harm we have done, what our part has been and making amends where appropriate. Steps 10-12 are maintenance steps watching out for the old behaviours and habits that got us into trouble in the first place. Yes, God is mentioned throughout because the founders felt that their faith in a Higher Power was significant in their recovery. That can be off-putting to some people but others (like marienbad) manage to find their own meaning in the steps without referencing a god. I don't have any peer reviewed research to back up my claim that this is the case but life isn't always as clinical as that and sometimes all a person has to offer is their own personal experience. I'm not a scientist or an academic so I will always be on the back foot in a discussion such as this but I find it frustrating that personal experience is disregarded entirely when it is relevant.


  • #360
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    mazcon wrote: »
    AA is self-regulating through its 12 traditions

    I get a little scared when I see the word "self-regulate", because to be honest nothing good ever comes out of self regulations. The accountancy profession has it, and every year accountants get less and less behoven to deliver proper books of account to company shareholders and to investigate their client companies for improprieties, the solicitors have it and most punishments for wrongdoing by solicitors is nothing more than a slap on the wrist, the British newspapers have it and it lead to widespread illegal phone tapping by multiple papers, the guards until recently had it and it lead to the continuing denigration and obstruction of whistleblowers and the (recently inaugerated) ombudsman, the banks had it in essence (laws are written by banking lobbys, regulators are former/future bankers, &c.) and look where that lead.

    In short self-regulation is no regulation, and when any body says it self-regulates the first thing any thinking person should do is to look for what they are trying to hide.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I get a little scared when I see the word "self-regulate", because to be honest nothing good ever comes out of self regulations. The accountancy profession has it, and every year accountants get less and less behoven to deliver proper books of account to company shareholders and to investigate their client companies for improprieties, the solicitors have it and most punishments for wrongdoing by solicitors is nothing more than a slap on the wrist, the British newspapers have it and it lead to widespread illegal phone tapping by multiple papers, the guards until recently had it and it lead to the continuing denigration and obstruction of whistleblowers and the (recently inaugerated) ombudsman, the banks had it in essence (laws are written by banking lobbys, regulators are former/future bankers, &c.) and look where that lead.

    In short self-regulation is no regulation, and when any body says it self-regulates the first thing any thinking person should do is to look for what they are trying to hide.

    This is all true , but only governments can regulate , and until then it is the law of the land as is and self regulate .

    A question I asked earlier in general , in all the scandals in the last 20 years in every facet of life in Ireland has there been one involving AA ?


Advertisement