Interesting Feedback
Over on Reddit, I've gotten some interesting opinions I thought I'd post. AA cult members are very hostile to criticism of their fragile belief system. Belief trumps reasoning for them. They are extremely anti-intellectual. I call them members of the "Anti-Enlightenment" movement. I expected a lot worse feedback then I received. Some of it was very interesting.
On the post I did called "AA: What The Science Says," I presented the major scientific studies on recovery programs. The studies compared the efficacy of no treatment, AA, Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT, or "SMART Recovery") or just conventional "talk" therapy (insight therapy). Reddit readers made the following comments. I was shocked by the faulty reasoning and logic in them.
They're only as effective as the person who is utilizing them.
Meaning: If the person really wants to quit, they're good resources. The only problem is the PERSON doesn't usually want to quit or isn't strong enough to stick to the programs.
Too much emphasis is placed on the programs.
I suspect this person is a present or former AA'er. This is the typical "blame the victim" reasoning. If AA doesn't work, it's because the person didn't want to quit badly enough, or isn't "strong enough" to stick with the program. At the meetings I'm forced to attend, each one is opened with everyone chanting:
RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.
The Big Book, William G. Wilson, Chapter 5, How It Works, page 58.
See the reasoning? If AA doesn't work, it's YOUR FAULT! You are constitutionally incapable of being honest with yourself. You are one of the unfortunates. You are naturally incapable of even comprehending what self-honesty is. How incredibly condescending.
It shouldn't be "your fault" if a supposed "effective" treatment doesn't work. This is comparable as having a doctor give you a sugar pill, having it not work, and then telling you that it's because you are a worthless lowlife.
A "Ms. Kim" from the "court system" (read--drug rehab industry, probably a LADC) wrote:
Of all of the people I have worked with in the court system, the majority of people who were sober after having drug and alchol/drug problems said it was because of AA/NA. A few quit cold turkey but that was very few.
To which I replied:
With the New Hampshire court system, EVERYONE is assigned to AA. There is no alternative alcohol/drug program.
It may be that the people you have worked with used AA because that's all that was available or that secular alternatives were just not as readily available. Also, AA'ers proselytize just like any other fundamentalist group.
The science shows that AA is ineffective, or at least no more effective than spontaneous remission without treatment. Reliable scientific data trumps opinion, rumor, or anecdotal evidence, always. Not, "I heard" or "all the people I've worked with" or "around here" etc...
"Ms. Kim" replied:
People in the area were sentenced to rehab, treatment plans, AA, and a few other things through the drug court. I have yet to meet anyone who went to a treatment or rehab program and "got cured" (I'm sure there are some, I just haven't met them). Of the people I worked with AA is what people said worked. There is no hard data on the one cure all for alcoholism. If there was, everyone would be using only that one cure that worked. Now it is a hit and miss proposition and what works for one person may not work for another.
Ms. Kim completely misses my distinction between anecdotal, personal or hearsay evidence with real scientific evidence--large sample size, randomly assigned to different treatment groups, double-blind, etc...Then she states "there is no hard data." Evidently she didn't read my post, because there is hard data and it is not a "hit or miss" proposition.
I replied:
Yes...there is hard data on recovery programs. A simple search of the literature would have shown you this. But I guess it's easier just to say "There's no hard data on the one cure for all alcoholism," isn't it?
See, particularly, the meta-analyses below:
Ditman, K.S., Crawford, G.C., Forgy, E.W., Moskowitz, H., & MacAndrew, C. (1967). A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrests. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(2), 64-67.
Brandsma, J.M., Maultsby, M.C., & Welsh, R.J. (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Alcoholics Anonymous. (n.d., presumably 1990). Comments on AA.s triennial surveys. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.
I can tell you work in the court system and not the scientific system.
Let's hope Ms. Kim is not involved in choosing mandated self-help programs for DUI offenders. Or maybe she is, here in New Hampshire.
"Cananboy" wrote:
Statistically speaking, they are not very effective. However, I've been to several AA meetings (open) as an observer and there are many individuals that it is helpful for. There is nothing wrong with taking a placebo if it works. So many people get caught up in the science and numbers, that they forget the actual meaning of it. There are few places where people can go and find a supportive group of friends and strangers. More power to them.
I mostly agree with Cananboy, and I appreciated his honesty. Yes, there is something wrong with taking a placebo. If you have an illness (drug abuse/dependence), you should not be given a placebo (AA) when there is an effective drug available (SMART Recovery, or even doing it yourself). It's against the law for physician to do this.
Additionally, AA is not "optional" for me. I've been ordered to go. I'm an atheist. AA is a religious organization. Being forced to attend what are essentially religious services has been found by six federal circuit courts to be illegal. In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:
Alcholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
--Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
If people want to voluntarily go to a religious service (where the Lord's Prayer is said while holding hands in a circle), they are welcome to. They should know however, that in the largest and most rigorous scientific study to date, AA-treated subjects were over four times more likely to binge drink compared with the control group, and nine times more likely than the lay-REBT group. (Brandsma, J.M., et al., (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.)
This is called "Informed Consent." No one gives a damn about my consent, though, because New Hampshire mandated my AA attendance. Silly me.
On my post entitled, "AA: Of Course It's A Cult," I got a lot of responses from Reddit readers.
"bwthwy" posted:
I was involved in AA for around a year, and this was ultimately the reason I left. I was originally attracted to the program because I wanted to cut down on my drinking, and AA is one of the few drinking/drug programs that had meetings where I was. Coming in, I was pretty adamant with them about the past troubles I'd had with religion, but the party line is that your higher power can be anything, "even a doorknob," that keeps you from drinking.
After a few months, I noticed that, in reality, almost everyone had the same Christian higher power, but I decided to stick with it because another party line is, "many who leave the rooms die drunk within a year." One of the later steps is prayer. When I asked my sponsor about this, he insisted that I take the steps one at a time and that I act first, believe later.
I eventually read online about other secularists who had left the program and turned out fine. Many people like myself had grown tired of the slogans and dishonesty. I left a week before I would've picked up my one year chip and I've never looked back.
It's been six months, and things have turned out really well. I've had a few beers since then, but I do not drink like I used to. At some point, I think I just decided to grow up and take responsibility for my actions. As a result, I'm a lot more satisfied than I was either before or during AA.
"Canadian anarchist" wrote:AA lures you in by telling you that it's not a religious organization, but, in reality, it is.
AA actually has quite a abysmal success rate at 5% of "graduates" staying sober 1 year after the program. Meaning that 95% of people are still alcoholics. The failings of AA are directly attributed to its religious basis. By taking the blame and responsibility off yourself and placing it in God's care, you absolve yourself of all independent will to change. If you fail, it's God's fault; if you succeed, it's God's blessing. The best drug abuse treatment is when the individual accepts responsibility for their actions and their future, that way lasting progress is possible.It was so refreshing to hear someone who knew the actual science behind AA. More evidence that the US schools are failing to produce science-literate graduates capable of critical thinking (this poster was Canadian).
"RyanPsych" posted:
"spacepirate01"I've previously worked in an alcohol/drug rehabilition program- and yeah, AA is totally a religious program. In fact, several of the 12 steps require religiosity, including finding a "higher power" who is the only one that can solve their alcohol problems.
The fact that the majority of them take place in churches doesn't help the situation.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, I thought by AA you meant "American Atheists". Whew. Yeah "Alcoholics Anonymous" is definitely overly religious."TerXIII" said
I brought this up a few months ago. I was overwhelmingly shut down by the community, and downvoted into oblivion for stating my opinions of AA's perversion of scientific data, their low success rate, their semantic coercion, and the overall assumption that I was put into the program for a reason.
I refused treatment, and did my six sessions. I left the program of my own accord, despite their warnings that my problem would "consume you without our help.", and I have had maybe a handful of drinks in the last year. I have simply had no interest in drinking, but not because of the program, because I decided that I don't like being around alcoholics any more.
"CompactusDiskus" posted:I don't know what's with AA people, but they seriously chew your ass for bad-mouthing the program.
AA is hugely problematic. To call it a cult is a little far fetched though, as it doesn't necessarily meet a lot of the standard cult criteria.
And finally, I got this lively exchange:It is, however, based on completely unscientific foundations, discourages rigorous analysis of its practices, and reveres its founding "holy book" as doctrine that must be followed in order to succeed in overcoming addiction.
