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

351–360 of 366 posts

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

#351

Post by placer »

olliej wrote: post #135
neonate wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the OP and two other articles (see below), I believe your presumption is mistaken. It's hard to say for sure, because the list of studies included in the meta-analysis hasn't been published yet (that I can find). (Edit: it looks like the study is available at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... ) But the articles make it clear that this was a rigorous meta-analysis done by qualifi…

Ok, this article itself measures in terms of continuing to attend meetings, etc Some basic googling found https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irr... from 2015, which covers most of my understanding of AA. The measure of success should be relapse after treatment , but AA doesn't have the concept of stopping, and more importantly does not consider relapse after ceasing attendance to be a failure of…

That old 2015 article is out of date, and the brand new Cochrane review presents evidence which downright contradicts a number of its findings. Notably, that old article claims AA has a 5% success rate, but the new Cochrane review sees a 41.8% success rate for people who got treatment which got them in the rooms of AA.

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

#352

Post by placer »

a_c_s wrote: post #91

That doesn't make sense: AA is not very effective at all. "Based on these data, he put AA’s actual success rate somewhere between 5 and 8 percent." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irr...

That information is, at best, out of date. The new Cochrane study links to a number of studies which show a far higher rate of abstinence than 5% for subjects randomly assigned to undergo treatment which encourages them to be part of the AA fellowship. It reports a 41.8% success rate — actually abstinence from alcohol rate — 12 months after treatment.

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

#353

Post by placer »

snurfer wrote: post #7

Anecdotally, self-help is an effective approach not mentioned in the article.

It’s been established for a long time in the treatment field that AA (or pretty much anything else) works a lot better than no treatment.

Brandsma 1980 is the only study I can think of off of the top of my head comparing AA (and a few other therapies) to no treatment; AA (and everything else) did significantly better than getting no help.

What this new Cochrane study demonstrates is that AA is more effective at giving alcoholics long-term abstinence than traditional psychotherapy treatments.

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

#354

Post by Mikhail_Edoshin »

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…

If you think logic is so powerful, why don't you use it to cure alcoholism instead if spending it in HN comments? :) The use of surrender is to admit you don't know how things work. At least not to the point to actually cure yourself of addiction.

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

#355

Post by Mikhail_Edoshin »

golover721 wrote: post #168
NicolasGorden wrote: post #13

I completely agree with the message that people-helping people is super effective. But I'd like to point out that one of the core tenants of AA is to surrender to a higher power. I'm not advocating in favor of religion. But rather highlighting that maybe people who accept 'surrender' of their own will are more likely to get better. There's something to the concept that seems powerful. Anecdotally, I've known someone…

I have been going to AA for a while now, mostly because it is the only type of group meeting regularly available. The part that I cannot come to grips with is not so much the recognition of a higher power, but the fact that you have to believe that you are "powerless" to your addiction. This whole notion of pushing off fault and that you cannot change your behavior without the higher powers intervention is not someth…

The idea of admitting you're powerless is to admit that the worldview you've been holding so far doesn't seem to work against addiction. Which means it's not entirely correct. Which means some things you think you know are not so.

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

#356

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #354
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you think logic is so powerful, why don't you use it to cure alcoholism instead if spending it in HN comments? :) The use of surrender is to admit you don't know how things work. At least not to the point to actually cure yourself of addiction.

> If you think logic is so powerful, why don't you use it to cure alcoholism instead if spending it in HN comments? :)

Where did I make the claim that logic could be used to cure alcoholism?

> The use of surrender is to admit you don't know how things work. At least not to the point to actually cure yourself of addiction.

Which doesn't make a Zagnut bar an agent that has power, does it?

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

#357

Post by Mikhail_Edoshin »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #356
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think logic is so powerful, why don't you use it to cure alcoholism instead if spending it in HN comments? :) The use of surrender is to admit you don't know how things work. At least not to the point to actually cure yourself of addiction.

> If you think logic is so powerful, why don't you use it to cure alcoholism instead if spending it in HN comments? :) Where did I make the claim that logic could be used to cure alcoholism? > The use of surrender is to admit you don't know how things work. At least not to the point to actually cure yourself of addiction. Which doesn't make a Zagnut bar an agent that has power, does it?

How do you know?

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

#358

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #357
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think logic is so powerful, why don't you use it to cure alcoholism instead if spending it in HN comments? :) Where did I make the claim that logic could be used to cure alcoholism? > The use of surrender is to admit you don't know how things work. At least not to the point to actually cure yourself of addiction. Which doesn't make a Zagnut bar an agent that has power, does it?

How do you know?

That must be the cheapest attempt at shifting the burden of proof I've encountered yet.

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

#359

Post by Mikhail_Edoshin »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #358
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know?

That must be the cheapest attempt at shifting the burden of proof I've encountered yet.

A sane rational logical person has an addiction. The sane rational logical tools he has do not help him to get rid of it. This means he cannot trust them. There's a flaw somewhere and he doesn't know where. They are not good for any conclusion, including the agency and power of that bar. The best he can do is to drop them and admit he knows nothing. Then there's a chance to learn something new that may help with that addiction.

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

#360

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #359
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That must be the cheapest attempt at shifting the burden of proof I've encountered yet.

A sane rational logical person has an addiction. The sane rational logical tools he has do not help him to get rid of it. This means he cannot trust them. There's a flaw somewhere and he doesn't know where. They are not good for any conclusion, including the agency and power of that bar. The best he can do is to drop them and admit he knows nothing. Then there's a chance to learn something new that may help with that…

Which doesn't make a Zagnut bar an agent that has power, does it?
Post reply on HN