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

Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#121

Post by virgilp »

Retric wrote: post #81
virgilp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have the study? Not some newspaper articles. It feels very unlikely to me that they were able to prove harm from 3 glasses a month, I'd like to read that. [edit] In the article cited in NPR, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2818... , which makes the claim "zero consumption minimises risk", you can see that ischemic heart disease & diabetes risks actually go down for 1 glass a day, while…

We are looking at different studies. This is the meta analysis I am referring to: “Every category of drinking was associated with an increased risk of cancer.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268874745_Alcohol_c... PS: The study included what it called light drinking as a cancer risk. I am less generous with terminology.

Look at the "light drinking"[] result in figure 2 - most whiskers cross the 1.0 line when it's not downright in the left-hand side! (e.g. lung cancer relative risk - if you trust that result, it means light drinking _improves_ your lung cancer prospects). They flat out state that lymphoma risk is inversely correlated with drinking. AND it's only about cancer - no word about other diseases (e.g. ischemic heart disease, where there are studies showing light wine drinking improve your odds).

Overall, your meta-study hardly proves that "any quantity of alcohol is bad for your health"; quite the contrary in fact, I'd say.

[] 1 glass of wine a day according to their definition.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#122

Post by jyriand »

Quequau wrote: post #11

After years and years of struggling with alcoholism and AA, I got sober with naltrexone using the "Sinclair Method". I followed the treatment plan for a few weeks and at the end quitting drinking was easy and obvious. That was just over ten years ago and I haven't had a drink or gone to any meetings since. I'm only one person and I'm fully aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data. However, the experience was so d…

Anyone know if there is something similar to quit smoking? Tried to quit cold turkey 20 times at least, usually can’t get past the first day.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#123

Post by coleifer »

mgamache wrote: post #60

If you consider addiction as a psychological and physical dependence on a chemical what healthcare professional would design a program like AA? Seven of the 12 steps involve God. It also reinforces the 'moral failure' stigma attached to the person. You drink too much for a reason, not because you are a bad person. It's likely due to genetic and environmental factors. ohh and you can die from withdrawal (unlike most o…

> You drink too much for a reason

I don't think that's right. More than anywhere else, it seems like on HN there's an idea of the infallibility of human rationality. Would anyone in their right mind a) shoot dirty dope filtered through a cigarette butt, b) gamble themselves into debt with the mafia, c) overeat to the point they can't leave the house, d) play videogames compulsively for days on end, etc?

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#124

Post by Tushon »

coleifer wrote: post #123
mgamache wrote: post #60

If you consider addiction as a psychological and physical dependence on a chemical what healthcare professional would design a program like AA? Seven of the 12 steps involve God. It also reinforces the 'moral failure' stigma attached to the person. You drink too much for a reason, not because you are a bad person. It's likely due to genetic and environmental factors. ohh and you can die from withdrawal (unlike most o…

> You drink too much for a reason I don't think that's right. More than anywhere else, it seems like on HN there's an idea of the infallibility of human rationality. Would anyone in their right mind a) shoot dirty dope filtered through a cigarette butt, b) gamble themselves into debt with the mafia, c) overeat to the point they can't leave the house, d) play videogames compulsively for days on end, etc?

I think that was the point of OP's comment, since you cut the rest of the statement

> You drink too much for a reason, not because you're a bad person.

the reason here being predisposition, environmental factors, genetics, and/or current illness

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

derefr wrote: post #113
mgamache wrote: post #60

If you consider addiction as a psychological and physical dependence on a chemical what healthcare professional would design a program like AA? Seven of the 12 steps involve God. It also reinforces the 'moral failure' stigma attached to the person. You drink too much for a reason, not because you are a bad person. It's likely due to genetic and environmental factors. ohh and you can die from withdrawal (unlike most o…

The AA steps were constructed in a culturally-Christian environment, for people who are also culturally-Christian, even if they’re atheists. (I.e., they are people who were taught Christian messages and then maybe rejected them, and who also have a mostly-Christian community around them.) Thus, they have to be read through this lens. Basically, if you want to “translate” the AA steps for the modern era where things a…

> It pushes you “back” toward the Christian Church because it knows it can’t help you forever

AA very specifically does not push you off on some other organization for support, and very specifically does not see or bill itself as being unable to provide lifetime support.

It's designed as “you come, you stay, you evangelize”, not “you come, you get some value, you go back to some other support system”.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#126

Post by k_sh »

jyriand wrote: post #122
Quequau wrote: post #11

After years and years of struggling with alcoholism and AA, I got sober with naltrexone using the "Sinclair Method". I followed the treatment plan for a few weeks and at the end quitting drinking was easy and obvious. That was just over ten years ago and I haven't had a drink or gone to any meetings since. I'm only one person and I'm fully aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data. However, the experience was so d…

Anyone know if there is something similar to quit smoking? Tried to quit cold turkey 20 times at least, usually can’t get past the first day.

Wellbutrin (bupropion hcl) is FDA approved as a smoking-cessation aid.

I took it for a year or so (though not for smoking cessation), if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them! Email in profile.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#127

Post by scottlocklin »

superpermutat0r wrote: post #34
randomacct3847 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New findings show there’s no such thing as a “safe amount of alcohol” https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/641618937/no-amount-of-alcoho...

Well, the increased risks from 1 glass of wine per day is abysmal. Even 2 glasses of wine.

That link (which keeps being posted in HN) a case study in terrible, absurd statistics. There's some other study recently touted that booze (and coffee) keeps old people alive longer. I have no idea if it's any more sound, but it's obvious that alcohol isn't that bad in moderation based on simple demographics.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#128

Post by getsugablitz2 »

Tushon wrote: post #124
coleifer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You drink too much for a reason I don't think that's right. More than anywhere else, it seems like on HN there's an idea of the infallibility of human rationality. Would anyone in their right mind a) shoot dirty dope filtered through a cigarette butt, b) gamble themselves into debt with the mafia, c) overeat to the point they can't leave the house, d) play videogames compulsively for days on end, etc?

I think that was the point of OP's comment, since you cut the rest of the statement > You drink too much for a reason, not because you're a bad person. the reason here being predisposition, environmental factors, genetics, and/or current illness

So those factors listed essentially encompass your personality and dictate why a person does any action.

In that case, how do we hold anyone personally responsible for anything considering that the reason a person does any action is a result of their genetics and the environment they grow in?

Not criticizing, just wondering how others reconcile this.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#129

Post by BeetleB »

thelasthuman wrote: post #46

For something supposedly so good on it's own, religion really does try it's best to target vulnerable people. Naive children, desperate people, people who have lost someone, people sick with addiction (referencing the submitting to the higher power step). Whatever helps during trying times I guess. It just seems to me if religion was so great on its own, it would be approached in a calm rational manner targeted at ma…

>For something supposedly so good on it's own, religion really does try it's best to target vulnerable people.

As does medicine, if you think about it.

Re: Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model

#130

Post by whiddershins »

mgamache wrote: post #60

If you consider addiction as a psychological and physical dependence on a chemical what healthcare professional would design a program like AA? Seven of the 12 steps involve God. It also reinforces the 'moral failure' stigma attached to the person. You drink too much for a reason, not because you are a bad person. It's likely due to genetic and environmental factors. ohh and you can die from withdrawal (unlike most o…

There are any number of persistent myths attached to the popular conception of 12 step programs.

I am in no way an expert on AA, but I have researched various addiction treatment methods fairly extensively and am close to people who work professionally in recovery programs.

The idea that AA reinforces the "moral failing" aspect of addiction seems contrary to everything I've ever read, heard, or seen in regards to AA.

There may be a sense in which what you wrote is true, depending on defining very hard to define words such as "moral" ... I say that to apply the principle of charity to your comment as liberally as possible.

My problem with you writing what you wrote is that it could discourage someone from seeking help. AA is free and nearly ubiquitous. It is decentralized and the implementation varies considerably from group to group. People can relatively easily find meetings and just walk in. Whether or not it is the best fit for any given addict, it is often the first step someone takes on a very difficult road.

I don't think it in any way serves the common good to make discouraging comments about it. Especially if they are potentially misleading, which IMO yours is.

Post reply on HN