Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 366 posts

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#231

Post by hootbootscoot »

is there an HN flagbot randomly flagging posts for opaque reasons?

will smearing blood on this post keep it from getting flagged or is this comment already suspect and targeted by the Reaper XNPQ3 due to it being a reply to a previously flagged post?

does it cost you any points in heaven to flag a post?

May I simply feel free to flag posts containing adjectives in lieu of adverbs?

I've noticed that all of the 50 states I'd visited featured grammatically incorrect street signs advising one to "drive slow"... must be related to sign painters being grown up "slow children playing" also from grammatical butchery sign infamy...

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#232

Post by im3w1l »

notafraudster wrote: post #199
dang wrote: post #190

So far the comments have been about people's prior experiences with the topic (which is great), or prior opinions about the topic (which is ok). But the more interesting story is being overlooked: this is heavy-duty new research that overturns previous conclusions, including the prior expectations of at least one of the lead authors. It would be good to discuss the specifics of the article and the new study.

Do you think you could elaborate why you believe this is "heavy-duty" new research (or even new research at all, rather than a new meta-analytic synthesis of old research)? My quick read of the study suggests that they examined several outcomes, got null or low powered results on most of them, and chose to highlight the single result which did show a significantly positive effect on recovery; that result was based on…

Sorry for going on a rant here, but I dislike the framing implicit in "spontaneous remission".

Addiction does vanish spontaneously with a wave of a wand. These are people of flesh and blood and free will that managed to overcome their addiction. They are making attempts at treating themselves. They might be reading blog posts with advice. They may avoid buying alcohol for fear they'll drink it all. They be taking detours around bars. They may be meditating or even self-administering cbt.

So calling it spontaneous seems a misnomer.

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#233

Post by [deleted] »

iateanapple wrote: post #205
athrowaway69 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had other experiences. The friendships I had in AA were superficial. Once, when I was struggling and needed help and people to talk to, I was completely ignored by the people around me. They didn't want to help the struggling - just to have this toxic positivity that nothing is wrong. I later moved out of state. I came back to visit family, and went back to a meeting to find out that there were rumors that I had re…

> When I moved, the meetings I encountered were extremely hostile to atheists. In my experience there are two types of atheists who go to AA: those for whom religion “isn’t their thing” and those who are actively hostile to religion. I think the latter group should find an alternative to AA.

[deleted]

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#234

Post by runarberg »

notafraudster wrote: post #199
dang wrote: post #190

So far the comments have been about people's prior experiences with the topic (which is great), or prior opinions about the topic (which is ok). But the more interesting story is being overlooked: this is heavy-duty new research that overturns previous conclusions, including the prior expectations of at least one of the lead authors. It would be good to discuss the specifics of the article and the new study.

Do you think you could elaborate why you believe this is "heavy-duty" new research (or even new research at all, rather than a new meta-analytic synthesis of old research)? My quick read of the study suggests that they examined several outcomes, got null or low powered results on most of them, and chose to highlight the single result which did show a significantly positive effect on recovery; that result was based on…

> And for "rates of continuous abstinence" they found a positive effect.

It’s been a while since I reviewed the literature for substance abuse disorder, but if I remember correctly it was highly disputed whether complete abstinence was necessary (or even beneficial) for treatment. Has this changed?

The argument was that by focusing on abstinence you are setting a significant part of your patience up for failure with all the psychological harm involved in knowing that they’ve failed, which might result in severe and frequent relapses.

EDIT: To conclude. I find it hard to draw conclusions if success is measured in “days of abstinence”. That means that a patient that has recovered from cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) that uses occasionally and non-detrimentally is not considered a success! Further AA or other 12-step programs do often stress abstinence while CBT does not, this creates a counting bias in favor of 12-step programs.

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#235

Post by hootbootscoot »

throwaway5667 wrote: post #203
Valmar wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ibogaine is amazing at dealing with addiction, considering that it can blow away a serious Heroin addiction after one good trip.

Isn't ibogaine that one drug where you have to go to West Africa to find it due to its being illegal and inaccessible everywhere else and trips last for literal days?

tis indeed.

as distinguished from iocaine, which is merely inconceivable.

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#236

Post by suifbwish »

elixanchor wrote: post #115

recovering addict here. some words for those who may be struggling. i tried a number of things over many years (life coach, therapy, meditation retreats, ayahuasca, ibogaine, etc). i reached a bottom, and nothing i had tried really worked or stuck. kept relapsing after a few months of sobriety at most. ultimately it was going to AA that i largely credit to my successful transformation into a happy life of sobriety. i…

I credit naltrexone for my recovery.

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#237

Post by suifbwish »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #208

It's noteworthy that all but one of the studies quoted in that meta-review were conducted in the United States. The usual criticism levied against AA is that it takes a religious approach, but that's not even true, it it built on evangelicalism. If you are in the US, you are either evangelical or you at least understand evangelicalism because that's what your friends and colleagues profess. You wonder how AA would fa…

What the hell is evangelicalism? Sounds like some kind of virus for the brain

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#239

Post by xnyan »

iateanapple wrote: post #205
athrowaway69 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had other experiences. The friendships I had in AA were superficial. Once, when I was struggling and needed help and people to talk to, I was completely ignored by the people around me. They didn't want to help the struggling - just to have this toxic positivity that nothing is wrong. I later moved out of state. I came back to visit family, and went back to a meeting to find out that there were rumors that I had re…

> When I moved, the meetings I encountered were extremely hostile to atheists. In my experience there are two types of atheists who go to AA: those for whom religion “isn’t their thing” and those who are actively hostile to religion. I think the latter group should find an alternative to AA.

Why should they find an alternate group? I thought the purpose was to address alcohol addiction. And to what group should they go?

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous vs. other approaches: the evidence is now in

#240

Post by leetcrew »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #209
fat_cam wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a current and active member of AA, let me re-affirm that this battle over a "higher power" exists inside the rooms of AA just as everyone is arguing about it here. A great many alcoholics let them selves get hung up on the concept of a higher power, or more specifically, the word "God". The word God appears 134 times in the first 164 pages of the Big Book. For many non religious people as well as non Christian peo…

> That power could be the love of your family, wife/husband, kids, the energy that moves the cosmos, or a fucking Zagnut bar. So, either you actually believe that a Zagnut bar is an agent that can help you out of your desparate situation by using its special powers. Or you are intentionally obfuscating the rather obvious fact that indeed, people do not need to surrender to anything or anyone, because obviously it's n…

I'm not an AA person, and frankly, from what I know about it, I find it somewhat off-putting . still, I will try and be charitable here.

I have a hard time going to the gym consistently. I know it's good for me, but I just don't like going very much. so I make plans with other people to go to the gym together. if I flake, often they say something about it the next day, which is annoying but ultimately helpful. acknowledging that I can't (or at least probably won't) go to the gym consistently on my own, I have voluntarily created a system where there is a social cost to not going. I still have to do all the work myself, but the other people help me stay on track.

Post reply on HN