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

With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#11

Post by labrador »

edmundsauto wrote: post #10
labrador wrote: post #3

I'm a recovering alcoholic who has worked the 12 steps. To get this out the way, I agree that courts should not be sending people to AA. It's no good for anyone. The reason that the 5 to 10 percent do well in AA actually doesn't have to do with the 12 steps themselves; it has to do with the camaraderie. I agree with the second half of the that sentence, but the reason the reason many people including researchers don'…

The steps are good advice and can be helpful for some people. That does not mean people who fail (80+% from the data I saw) are doing them wrong. Why is it so hard for people to accept that some things work, for some people. My personal experience of success is not a reasonable blueprint for literally anyone except me. Our experiences are shared but not useful to proscribe behavioral interventions for anyone except u…

My steps aren't even Alcoholics Anonymous or about alcohol, although derived from what Bill W wrote. In my case, my personal step 7 to change was Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Dialectic Behavioral Therapy, Cognitive Processing Therapy and Jungian Therapy plus Psychiatric diagnosis and medication. Nothing about this negates the 12 steps I have outlined.

Alcoholics Anonymous as it exists today is not what it used to be. It started out with people who had lost everything or were about to, people that society had given up on, "low bottom" drunks and the like, people who were desperate to stay alive like Bill himself.

Today's AA I'm afraid after all the court ordered people and all the people who use it as a social club because their doctor told them that 4 glasses of wine a day was too much so they should stop. Well, it's too watered down for me and I don't go. I'm not surprised people think it doesn't work. If you want to test this, to a meeting and try to get people to try to talk about how the steps work in their lives and how they recovered and stop using their time as a gripe session and try to find sponsors who will stick to just taking you through the steps and not try to be your therapist. I've seen enough, but ymmv

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#12

Post by aaron695 »

12-Step Programs have been shown to work within academia.

12-Step Programs are believed to work by most doctors and people in the industry.

12-Step Programs work on a theoretical level, it fits within the frameworks on addiction.

12-Step Program are said to have saved their lives by many people in them (antidotal)

The dirty secret why these contrarian articles keep coming out (Or linked back to [2014]) is all addiction programs fail at massive rates. Over 95% failure rates are normal for all 'solutions' depending on how you measure it.

It's not good to know this. It will increase your failure rate.

If you go down this road you will probably use a mix. Psychologists, rehab, 12 step, drugs like Naltrexone. You might end up on 12 step or it might come first you leave and end on psychologists. Or you might go back. Or around the loop many times. Many end on willpower, after other solutions like 12 step help get them there.

Whatever works.

12-Step Programs also have the best stories. That alone makes them worth popping into. You'll see Fight Club in a different (better) light.

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#13

Post by phs318u »

KingMob wrote: post #9
phs318u wrote: post #2

Sigh. As someone who’s had success in 12-step recovery since 1998, I find these sorts of “debunkings” incredibly disappointing. Firstly the measurement of success rate entirely misses the point. The 12-step view is that there isn’t a “once and done” cure. If I were to use an analogy it’s more like having lifelong diabetes. You gotta keep taking that insulin. It’s the continuity that forestalls the disease/ keeps you…

> The 12-step view is that there isn’t a “once and done” cure. If I were to use an analogy it’s more like having lifelong diabetes. You gotta keep taking that insulin. It’s the continuity that forestalls the disease/ keeps you in remission. This is actually one of the things that many psychologists are dubious about. It's entirely possible that self-labeling as an alcoholic forever makes it harder, not easier, for so…

Identifying as an alcoholic or gambling addict or drug addict etc, is no different than saying "I'm a diabetic". It's the label of a chronic disease. Applying that label to self is about acceptance of that as a fact of life that you can then work with. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to see e.g. a diabetic who did not accept the reality of their illness - it's not pretty. Acceptance is the price of vigilance.

I also believe you've misunderstood how we view ourselves (and each other) when we fall of the wagon/bust/slip. I'm not a "sober person who made a mistake". I'm an addict who made a mistake.

Most of us in 12-step programs have tried psychology (and counselling and hypnotherapy and...) before the despair was enough that we'd admit defeat and join *A. Admittedly, there's a cohort of people mandated to turn up. It should surprise no one that this cohort sees very high rates of recidivism. But I'd suspect the same to be the case for people mandated to attend psychotherapy. If you don't want to change, nothing can make you.

Pharmaceuticals are interesting. I believe that LSD has been trialled to help those with substance addictions but I'm not sure of the state of research regarding behavioural addictions.

Fundamentally though, the evidence is pretty clear that there's a neurological basis to most addictions including the behavioural ones. e.g. check the research of Mira Fauth-Buhler.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mira-Fauth-Buehler

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#14

Post by mikestew »

specproc wrote: post #8
specproc wrote: post #7

As someone who's been on his own journey with alcohol and hung out in a few sobriety forums (/r/stopdrinking is brilliant), I've seen a very clear difference between the 12-steppers and other people who are quit/quitting/moderating. I found the framing of the AA folks to be a lot more extreme. Problematic alcohol use is frequently described as an incurable, progressive disease. There's also this heavy focus on guilt…

FWIW, I am not an atheist and no longer drinking like I used to.

You can edit your posts within an hour or so. Look for the " edit [–]" up there to the right of your username, just before the title.

EDIT: or "edit | delete [–]", as the case may be.

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#15

Post by JamesBarney »

phs318u wrote: post #2

Sigh. As someone who’s had success in 12-step recovery since 1998, I find these sorts of “debunkings” incredibly disappointing. Firstly the measurement of success rate entirely misses the point. The 12-step view is that there isn’t a “once and done” cure. If I were to use an analogy it’s more like having lifelong diabetes. You gotta keep taking that insulin. It’s the continuity that forestalls the disease/ keeps you…

Yeah one of the issues is that much of the 12-step recovery community does not condone alcohol abuse disorder medication. So to extend your analogy it would be like a community that focuses exclusively on curing diabetes through a ketogenic diet, but also tells people they shouldn't take their insulin. Maybe ketogenic diet works, but we do need good data to figure out how it compares to taking insulin.

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#16

Post by martco »

"Alcoholics Anonymous, the worldwide fellowship of sobriety seekers, is the most effective path to abstinence, according to a comprehensive analysis conducted by a Stanford School of Medicine researcher and his collaborators."

March 11, 2020

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/alcoholics-an....

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#17

Post by specproc »

mikestew wrote: post #14
specproc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I am not an atheist and no longer drinking like I used to.

You can edit your posts within an hour or so. Look for the " edit [–]" up there to the right of your username, just before the title. EDIT: or "edit | delete [–]", as the case may be.

Interesting, can edit with hours gone by but not delete. Ah well, the inevitable next time. Thanks for the tip.

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#18

Post by klyrs »

specproc wrote: post #17
mikestew wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can edit your posts within an hour or so. Look for the " edit [–]" up there to the right of your username, just before the title. EDIT: or "edit | delete [–]", as the case may be.

Interesting, can edit with hours gone by but not delete. Ah well, the inevitable next time. Thanks for the tip.

You can edit/delete for 2 hours. You cannot delete a comment that's been replied to. Unless you somehow convince your respondents to delete their comments within your edit window, which never seems to work.

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#19

Post by specproc »

phs318u wrote: post #13
KingMob wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 12-step view is that there isn’t a “once and done” cure. If I were to use an analogy it’s more like having lifelong diabetes. You gotta keep taking that insulin. It’s the continuity that forestalls the disease/ keeps you in remission. This is actually one of the things that many psychologists are dubious about. It's entirely possible that self-labeling as an alcoholic forever makes it harder, not easier, for so…

Identifying as an alcoholic or gambling addict or drug addict etc, is no different than saying "I'm a diabetic". It's the label of a chronic disease. Applying that label to self is about acceptance of that as a fact of life that you can then work with. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to see e.g. a diabetic who did not accept the reality of their illness - it's not pretty. Acceptance is the price of vigilance.…

People can choose to identify as they wish, and I'm not for one second diminishing that identification. But problematic drinking is very different to diabetes, it's also highly varied in its expression and not as deterministic as the label suggests.

I totally understand why it's a helpful framing for some people, but it really isn't for others.

Re: With Sobering Science, Doctor Debunks 12-Step Recovery (2014)

#20

Post by [deleted] »

phs318u wrote: post #2

Sigh. As someone who’s had success in 12-step recovery since 1998, I find these sorts of “debunkings” incredibly disappointing. Firstly the measurement of success rate entirely misses the point. The 12-step view is that there isn’t a “once and done” cure. If I were to use an analogy it’s more like having lifelong diabetes. You gotta keep taking that insulin. It’s the continuity that forestalls the disease/ keeps you…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN