Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[qayak]

This may be true but for me would be a dangerous way to think. It is a very short step from:

I did it I deserve the credit!

to:

Hey, I can control my drinking! 1 or 2 after work today won't hurt me, I got the willpower to handle it now...

I don't read minds so I will have to take your word for it. I just can't see any connection between the two statements. Taking the credit for doing something in no way influences anyone to decide to do something they shouldn't. It's like saying, "I ran the best race of my life and won . . . Now I can't stop myself from robbing the corner store. I wish I had of given someone else credit for the win!"

I know some former alcoholics. Some of them do drink socially, some don't. It can be done.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I know some former alcoholics. Some of them do drink socially, some don't. It can be done.

I would suggest they were heavy or problem drinkers, not alcoholics.

 

[qayak]

See?!

I do see, A.A. was wrong.

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

I don't read minds so I will have to take your word for it. I just can't see any connection between the two statements. Taking the credit for doing something in no way influences anyone to decide to do something they shouldn't. It's like saying, "I ran the best race of my life and won . . . Now I can't stop myself from robbing the corner store. I wish I had of given someone else credit for the win!"

I know some former alcoholics. Some of them do drink socially, some don't. It can be done.

Oh I'm not saying it can't be done that way. I specifically said I can't do it that way.

To put it another way:

I beat my addiction.
I can control my drinking.
I would like to have a drink.
I can have a drink because I have proven that I can control it.
(glug)

Do you not see how some people (me) could easily go from the first sentence to the last? Anyways, I've done it so it is at least possible for one person on the planet.

By the way I'm not saying it is logical. If I could logic myself sober I'd have done it on my own 20 years ago, and taken the credit

 

[qayak]

I would suggest they were heavy or problem drinkers, not alcoholics.

How very condescending of you. Perhaps you are not an alcoholic just an attention whore whose claimed alcoholism needs to be worse than anyone elses.

So there really is only one way to sobriety and it is your way. You've got the deity, you've got the blind faith and you've got the one true path. How is this not a religion?

 

[elbe]

And btw, to you and others - I am still waiting on some stats for other forms of recovery that can add to our 5% "just stopped" and AAs 9%.

I don't see why you could add those numbers together to result in a larger "overall" success rate. If 5% of people who try cold turkey succeed, and 9% who try AA succeed, it doesn't factor in how many in each of those success groups would have succeeded with the other option (or any others). As far the numbers go, if you succeed in one you may very well have the ability to succeed in the other.

Even then, while 9% might seem a more successful result than cold turkey, AA could attract a slightly higher percentage of people who would be successful.

 

[qayak]

You seem to give an awful lot weight to the opinions of a handful of people (i.e. Bill, Bob and Orange). Each are simply individuals with their own opinions and experience. None of them is or has the last word. Why you keep rolling out the Bill and Orange as proof of anything is beyond me to be honest - it is tedious and pointless.

But you are the expert? It would seem the reason they are cited is because they provide statistics and a logical argument to support their claims.

This nutter has the final word? Please!
Perhaps he is in denial and is justifying his disease? If nothing else he's probably obsessive compulsive, filled with resentment, hate and revenge.

Now you are claiming to be a professional able to make psychological diagnosis by merely reading the words of another person.

Oh, my mistake! You aren't making a diagnosis, you are trying to call into question someone's mental health in order to have others disregard their well documented conclusions.

I'm not a psychiatrist but I think that is an indicator of your own mental health.

And btw, to you and others - I am still waiting on some stats for other forms of recovery that can add to our 5% "just stopped" and AAs 9%.

Interesting. Where do your stats come from? A.A. doesn't give out this type of information and all other sources say that their results are not accurate because of A.A.'s secretiveness. All the ones I have read also state that there is no evidence that A.A. has any better success than people who go it alone.

A.A. has made many success claims over the years, usually in the 80 - 100% range. Why is 9% now the accurate figure?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

All true Elbe
But what I am trying to get is some stats on other things that work.

Many say "AA doesn't work" as there is nothing empirical to support it (and that is pretty much true given the anonymity desires of the members).
They also say things like "other programs work just as well or better" (that is the inference anyway).

So, I really want to know what these other programs are. I would like to offer my clients as many options as possible.

At the moment we have some 86% of alcoholics still suffering and/or dying and no-one will come good with the numbers for me.

Why not?

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

A.A. has made many success claims over the years, usually in the 80 - 100% range. Why is 9% now the accurate figure?

I know you're really not talking to me, but I have to say I've never, ever heard anything like that in the years I've been around AA. Not even close. The only number I have heard with my own two ears from a AA member was 7%. And he had nothing to back that up. I've never heard any of these wild claims myself. Maybe other people have.

 

[elbe]

At the moment we have some 86% of alcoholics still suffering and/or dying and no-one will come good with the numbers for me.

That's the number I have a problem with. Even discounting that it looks like you added 5% and 9% again for no logical reason, all the numbers being used here say is that 5% (or whatever) of people who try to quit using method X succeed. It says nothing about the total population of alcoholics, as there is a presumed value Y of people who aren't trying that method (or, perhaps, any method).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But you are the expert? It would seem the reason they are cited is because they provide statistics and a logical argument to support their claims.

Really?
I discount thye big book as one man's experience.
The other I discount as someone with an axe to grind.

Me an expert? Hardly, but I do want to leanr and educate where I can

Now you are claiming to be a professional able to make psychological diagnosis by merely reading the words of another person.

Touche

Interesting. Where do your stats come from? A.A. doesn't give out this type of information and all other sources say that their results are not accurate because of A.A.'s secretiveness. All the ones I have read also state that there is no evidence that A.A. has any better success than people who go it alone.

The 9% was cited earlier (as between 5 and 13% earlier by another JREF member - I have used the average), and it seemed something we could agree on for the sake of ongoing discussions. If you have something else, by all means show us.
The 5% seems a satisfactory default figure too for thse that go it alone and I had no problem with it for the purposes of discussion.

A.A. has made many success claims over the years, usually in the 80 - 100% range.

Really?
I suppose you can back up that little claim? i.e. "many claims" of the "80 -100% range"?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That's the number I have a problem with. Even discounting that it looks like you added 5% and 9% again for no logical reason, all the numbers being used here say is that 5% (or whatever) of people who try to quit using method X succeed. It says nothing about the total population of alcoholics, as there is a presumed value Y of people who aren't trying that method (or, perhaps, any method).

Again, a fair point. But in the absense of other data it seems an acceptable starting point to me.

 

[elbe]

Again, a fair point. But in the absense of other data it seems an acceptable starting point to me.

I guess it depends on what you're looking to do with the data. Comparing relative success percentages seems fine, but trying to use them for bigger picture stats is just going to result in nonsense. Heck, you can't even get a joint percentage of people who've tried both and succeeded unless you had the actual numbers. As an example, 5% of 100 people succeeding with one program and and amazing 50% of 10 people who tried another doesn't equal 55% success across the board, but 9% of people who try succeed.

Not trying to be criticizing, I have little opinion on the debate as I don't drink, but you should always watch what you try to do with numbers.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And again I agree.

My point really wasn't around the %s so much as about what else is out there. Others in the thread have made numerous claims of AA being no more than, or less successful than 'other' programs'.

I genuinely and sincerely want to know what they are, but no-one seems to want to say. So in the absence of any other data - we have (say) 5% that "just stop" and (say) 9% that go to AA.

 

[qayak]

I know you're really not talking to me, but I have to say I've never, ever heard anything like that in the years I've been around AA. Not even close. The only number I have heard with my own two ears from a AA member was 7%. And he had nothing to back that up. I've never heard any of these wild claims myself. Maybe other people have.

-100% effectiveness with non-psychotic drinkers who sincerely want to quit. A.A.’s Jack Alexander Article about A.A., 1991.

-93% of those surveyed in Cleveland maintained uninterrupted sobriety. DR. BOB and the Good Oldtimers, p. 261; Dick B., That Amazing Grace, pp. 7, 29, 66; Mitch K. How It Worked, p. 108; Our A.A. Legacy by Three Clarence Snyder old-time rSponsees, 2005.

-75% of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried, 50% got sober and once and remained that way; 25% sobered up after some relapses, and about two-thirds of the remainder returned as time passed. Wilson’s Three Talks to Medical Societies, p. 13; A Program for You: A Guide to the Big Book’s Design for Living, 1991, p. 15; repeated in many pieces of A.A. literature.

-As we gained in size, we also gained in effectiveness. The recovery rate went up. Of all those who really tried A.A., 50 per cent made it at once, 25 per cent finally made it; and the rest, if they stayed with us, were definitely improved. That percentage has since held, even with those who first wrote their stories in the original edition of "Alcoholics Anonymous." In fact, 75 per cent of these finally achieved sobriety. Only 25 per cent died or went mad. Most of those still alive have been sober for an average of twenty years.

The 50-75% success rate number has been cited, without change or challenge, since it first publicly appeared in 1941 and it persists to this date.
(From: http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf)

NOTE- The claim that all other members lives were improved raises this claimed success rate to 75-100%

And I have not been able to find any claim to 9+% success rate for A.A. The best I find is 5% and most cite less, ie.- 2.5% - .01%.

 

[qayak]

And again I agree.

My point really wasn't around the %s so much as about what else is out there. Others in the thread have made numerous claims of AA being no more than, or less successful than 'other' programs'.

I genuinely and sincerely want to know what they are, but no-one seems to want to say. So in the absence of any other data - we have (say) 5% that "just stop" and (say) 9% that go to AA.

It has been quoted in other threads where you have posted in favour of A.A. That you have a short memory is your problem. The success rate for A.A. is no better, and probably worse, than for those who go it alone.

Going it alone is the other program. It doesn't require mystical higher powers, suspension of intelligence, or silly mantras out of a bible like book.

We haven't even touched on the multitude of lawsuits that A.A. finds itself in.

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

And I have not been able to find any claim to 9+% success rate for A.A. The best I find is 5% and most cite less, ie.- 2.5% - .01%.

I assume you're talking about scientific data here? It is kind of hard for me to tell the way this followed the other quotes.

I found a recent study that I posted in the other thread about AA that I chimed in on, that showed promise. But I'm not making any claims.

All the rest of that stuff you quoted, I don't know what to say. I'll repeat what I said before. I've never heard, in person, one AA member make a claim of any rate above (or below for that matter) 7%. These wild numbers and claims of 80% to 100% are things I've never heard spoken in real life.

I have only posted about my experience, of course. YMMV.

 

[Mr.D]

Quick post. Waaaaay behind on this thread.

Oh REALLY!!! Ibogaine trials have been suppressed in the US. And I bet you won't be able to back that up with an Official AA statement from its National or International offices. Though, I'll grant that maybe you'll find some local group or individual somewhere that is open to it.

"Science may one day accomplish this [making a normal drinker out of an alcoholic], but it hasn't done so yet." - Chapter 3, Alcoholics Anonymous.



As to much of the rest, I'll say this for now. My entrance into this thread was a response to the original title of this thread which read "Why do people insist AA is not a religion?" My response was that it's not one. If the point of the thread was that "AA is so religious that it might as well be a religion," then most of my response is pretty much off-topic (witness that nobody is arguing that the Boy Scouts are a religion and nobody is arguing that they aren't a religiously oriented group).

In any case I see the title has been changed to "Why do people insist AA is not religious?" So I'll address that. Clearly AA borrows heavily from religion and liberally uses language from Christianity, but it falls short of being religious itself (and that's why many choose to refer to AA as 'spiritual')

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

It has been quoted in other threads where you have posted in favour of A.A. That you have a short memory is your problem. The success rate for A.A. is no better, and probably worse, than for those who go it alone.

I don't think this has been proven, anywhere. I honestly don't think there's been enough scientific study to say one way or the other.

 

[elbe]

And again I agree.

My point really wasn't around the %s so much as about what else is out there. Others in the thread have made numerous claims of AA being no more than, or less successful than 'other' programs'.

I genuinely and sincerely want to know what they are, but no-one seems to want to say. So in the absence of any other data - we have (say) 5% that "just stop" and (say) 9% that go to AA.

I guess you could try looking through some of the groups in this list; check their websites to see if they make any success claims.