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 drama, and more importantly self-loathing, free and so effective, that I can't help but feel bitter towards the proponents of AA who insist on it being a monopoly... especially those in positions of power in the criminal justice or public health systems because from my perspective it's a malicious and vindictive stance.
From your short message, it seems our experience with alcohol is similar. I've been struggling with my level of alcohol consumption, about 7-8 months ago I read an article on the Atlantic[1] that detailed the effectiveness of naltrexone.
>However, the experience was so drama, and more importantly self-loathing, free and so effective,
I remember reading a while ago that this is the main problem with 12 step programs. Not that they don't work (they often do), but the manner in which failure is viewed. With typical medical and therapy treatments, if one treatment (psychological or chemical) is not working, the attitude of the doctor is to consider other treatments. The claim was that with the 12 step program, if it doesn't work for a person, the person is the problem. The notion that the 12 step program isn't for everyone is usually absent.
One, it’s not a quick fix. It works by inhibiting the pleasure response of alcohol. Therefore, it takes a very long time (a few months) for the brain to become re-conditioned and not associate alcohol with pleasure. During this time, one will continue to drink, but the desire to drink should gradually wane.
Two, it has a very short half-life. Therefore, it’s very easy for the brain to trick itself into not taking it. I have seen many people ‘accidently’ forget to take it before drinking. And, since the goal is to re-train thr brain, this really defeats the purpose.
Anyway, I recommend it to all of my friends. Unfortunately, it’s not well-known, so I only discovered it after doing my own research. And, then, I had to seek out doctors that even knew about it.
> ... I can't help but feel bitter towards the proponents of AA who insist on it being a monopoly... especially those in positions of power in the criminal justice or public health systems ....
Not an alcoholic, but I had extended discussions with a number of AA members some years ago. And I found that many of them also felt pretty negatively about the involvement of the justice system with AA. What happens (they said) is that people are forced to attend AA meetings as part of sentencing, but these people generally are not interested in recovery. The result is a lot of wasted time and the diversion of resources away from people who could be helped.
What margin of error did you have with the sinclair method, like if you were off an hour or two with taking the naltrexone would that matter? Also - did you have any withdrawal symptoms?
First congrats on finding something that works for you and making it stick!
From that perspective, I can see why you would not like folks that insist on AA being a monopoly, but I'm curious about that position. I've seen a lot of people that hate AA and a lot of people that think it saved their lives, but I've never seen anyone say that AA must be the only way to sobriety. What's the angle?
Wouldn't you consider beating an addiction to actually being able to take one or two drinks and leaving it at there?
In other words, if you're constantly counting the days without a drink and struggle with yourself to not drink, are you really "cured" from the addiction?
I've soon been sober for a year, and I was on a very destructive path. Would never have kept at it without that sub.
Here's how it helped me:
1. In the beginning I was hurting and feeling really isolated - posting semi-regular helped me vent and people with more sobriety under their belt gave support directly.
2. When I've been to occasions (weddings, birthday parties) that include drinking, I've been able to jump into the chat and find instant support telling me to not have the first drink.
3. There's a daily check-in where you post to pledge today's sobriety. In the beginning I pledged each day.
4. I have a badge by my name that keeps track of each day I've been sober. Having to reset that to zero is more motivating than you might believe at first.
5. I now comment on other users posts, trying to keep their mood up and push them to not drink by giving them support.
Also, the community and mods are superb, kind people.
It only hit me in the past few months how ingrained alcohol/drinking culture is in adult lives. It’s absolutely everywhere (ads, sports events, festivals, workplace, nightlife, social events). It’s actually crazy how lightly we treat this addictive, toxic substance that we joke about despite how many people it kills every year and harms directly and indirectly. At some point I was unknowingly drinking 4-5 times a week and thinking that was normal or OK. I’ve mostly just stopped and will only allow myself 1-2 drinks every few months on a vacation or social event with friends.
The unfortunate thing is how much people actually buy into it. I remember once in university, I was at a national entrepreneurship conference for student entrepreneurs. One night, there was a party at a club type of venue. I was sitting with a pretty female friend from my university when she asked me to get her water. So I went and got her a bottle of water. This jerk from another university walks up to us and incredulously asks me, "You got her water??? Here??? You got her water??? What's wrong with you???"
Nerdy, socially awkward me at the time couldn't think of a comeback and I felt embarrassed that I didn't get her a beer or cocktail. But I was also really annoyed, like logically, why am I the embarrassed one here? Today's me would have a lot more confidence and some witty comebacks. :)
But... part of me wonders... how much did that guy really believe what he was saying, and how much was that guy also just a scared kid inside trying to act cool and fit in due to the imagery he's been bombarded with?
Depends on the quantity I guess, but... why is drinking 4-5 times a week not ok? Something like a glass of wine or a small beer should be fine, right? In some countries (e.g. France) it's a wide-spread habit to drink a glass of wine at lunch, and it doesn't seem to harm public health.
Same thing. I wouldn't say I ever had a problem with alcohol, but even 1-2 drinks here or there do not line up with my life goals. I realized that even a single drink makes me feel not quite 100% the next day, and this effect has only increased as I've gotten older.
I do like beer and wine so I will have one on occasion. I found it makes them actually taste better, as I savor it now.
Some other side benefits is that it saves a TON of money, and I consume less calories. Alcohol is expensive, particularly in a bar or restaurant. Less calories is obvious.
It used to be much more ingrained. Factory or construction workers used to drink during work, and if those old movies are to believe men would pour themselves drinks all the times.
These days it is mostly acceptable to decline alcohol.
As someone who doesn't drink alcohol (and never has), this can often be a bit overwhelming. People tend to be very surprised when I tell them that I don't drink and are very confused when I'm unable to provide a reason like religious beliefs, a medical condition, or family history of alcoholism. From my perspective, it's pretty strange that I need a reason not to besides not wanting to; nobody seems to expect that I have a reason beyond that for any other form of entertainment activity, but consuming alcohol seems so ingrained in culture that people assume that anyone able to does so.
> how ingrained alcohol/drinking culture is in adult lives
I agree.
About a month ago I went to a social event where we would be doing XYZ. We finished our task and trundled for lunch; "when is the bar going to be open" was a common lament. All I wanted was to buy and eat pizza; which I did, but others were so very happy when the bartender showed up.
And this was lunch time. "Noon", for example. Martinis were wanted. I just wanted pizza.
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 other addictions).
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.
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?
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 aren’t so culturally-Christian, try replacing “God” with “a Church congregation-community”, where a “Church” is any social technology designed for taking a group of average people and trying to extract the best, most empathetic/humanist/“moral” group behavior out of them.
When AA says to rely on the “power of God” which is “strong” while your own willpower is “weak”, what they’re really saying, stripping away the culturally-Christian assumptions, is to rely on the social technology of a Church-like organization to amplify and backstop your willpower in various ways.
• Most Church-like organizations, regardless of religion, have a membership that strive to practice moderation in things like drinking, so switching your “community” to be that of the Church-like organization means switching your friends (maybe people who love to go out and get drunk?) for people who don’t. (This is a similar idea to why some people say prisoners are better off paroled: the last people you want prisoners around are other prisoners. You want them around good role-models, not bad ones, if you want them rehabilitated.)
• Most Church-like organizations provide access to a confidant and therapist (in Christian churches, that’d be the priest.) If you bond with this confidant-and-therapist figure, you’ll feel less bad about temporary failures, because you’ll have someone to tell who will help you get back on the horse, rather than shunning you for your failure.
• In most Church-like organizations, if you don’t attend the regular community meetings, the community members will get worried about you and check up on you. This will help prevent you from degenerating further after falling off the wagon.
AA is already a bridge between two worlds; although it is constructed under a culturally-Christian lens, it assumes that its attendeees are not necessarily members of any Church-like organization. So one of the goals of AA group meetings is to be a Church-like organization, for people who don’t attend Church. It pushes you “back” toward the Christian Church because it knows it can’t help you forever and wants you to find a more permanent Church-like organization to help you. This is similar to how psychiatrists encourage people who are stable on a maintenance dose of some drug to stop seeing them, by instead getting a family doctor (if they don’t already have one) and getting the family doctor to perscribe the maintenance dose of the drug.
I think that, while AA could be rephrased to not be culturally-Christian, it’d be very hard to replace its insistence on accepting some kind of religious Church-like organization into your life... because there really just aren’t that many non-religious Church-like organizations. If there were, maybe there’d be fewer alcoholics.
It seems plausible that the complex set of control systems that govern our survival became intimately intertwined with various alkaloids over a few million years, "outsourcing" production of raw building blocks to plants. One example is the way in which sulforaphane from broccoli (via glucosinolate glucoraphanin) reduces symptoms of autism in the presence of myrosinase (present in mustard). [^1]
Specifically, on the topic of addiction: "Ibogaine-treated rodents exhibit attenuated opioid withdrawal symptoms, and diminished self-administration of a variety of drugs of abuse, including opioids, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol. Anecdotal evidence suggests that ibogaine is also anti-addictive in humans." [^2]
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials show that a single dose of LSD had a beneficial effect on alcohol misuse (OR, 1.95, 95% CI, p=0.0003). [^3]
As we get better at modelling our own bodies, hopefully we can start to selectively replace or suppress some of our out-dated control systems to reduce suffering and increase efficiency while retaining our survivability.
"Reduces the symptoms of autism" isn't what you'd naively think it is. Autism symptoms are often more accurately described as "the sorts of things autistic people do while distressed." In other words, I suspect that the main effect is stress reduction of some sort, rather than autism reduction.
I want to see data driven novel approaches to addiction management. The 12-step model has dismal success rates [0]. Virtually all of the novel programs and facilities either do not report a success rate or their reported rate is highly suspicious. There are some exceptions [1]. The global addiction market is $4 billion and growing [2]. Any company working in the addiction space should keep accurate records of their success rate and push to improve that rate, because beating AA/NA's success rate at scale would be worth a large portion of the addiction market.
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 mature adults with no driving force behind it.
I would consider myself to be an expert of sorts on AA. I was a member for over 20 years, attended at least 4000 meetings, have read everything ever published by AA World Services (and even held private study groups with folks to discuss these books). I served at every level except national.
I left AA when I became a christian 15 years ago. (Yes, I started AA young, as a teenager.)
All that is background for these strongly held opinions:
1. AA is decidedly not christian. If anything, it is a mere cult with some christian trappings and actually some occult underpinnings. No one ever heard the gospel at an AA meeting. It's not synonymous with christianity.
2. AA's recovery rate is abysmal, and actually less successful than just doing nothing about addiction. There is lots of room for providing much more effective help for people with addictions.
3. The practice of forcing people to attend AA meetings under court order should be stopped entirely.
I know that most here are likely not christian and some are openly hostile. That's a completely different discussion than helping addicts to recover.
A good resource for the many failings of AA can be found at the Orange Papers site. It seems the original site is down, but I believe someone has mirrored it elsewhere. Lots of info on the strange origins of AA there.
I'm not sure why, it may be a regional thing but I attend meetings in support for someone else and there are plenty of people who do not believe in God and state as such. I believe the third step even agrees, though I may be misinterpreting it: "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him."
The "as we understood Him", while most likely still referring to God, is what is used to mean whatever works for you even if it isn't God but something you can believe in as much to help you, which then opens the door for substituting God in the later steps for your version (or not) of him.
My personal opinion is that I find the program a bit cultish and don't agree that telling people they are helpless is the right way to help them, but that's my opinion and I respect that the program works for some people.
Speaking as an individual here, not on behalf of NA...
As an openly Atheist member of Narcotics Anonymous, with 23 years clean time, I'm here to say Christianity as a barrier to recovery is a matter of personal choice. Yes, I'm an Atheist with a higher power, it's my [G]roup [O]f [D]rug addicts. I kibitz with them about how to stop using, losing the desire to use and finding a new way to live. The Third Tradition of any 12-Step Fellowship clearly says there is only one requirement for membership. In the case of NA, that requirement is a desire to stop using. AA states a desire to stop drinking. They literally cannot kick you out for choosing a secular life. In my experience, anything beyond a brief mention of someone's faith or Atheism is frowned upon, because every addict's choice of a higher power or lack thereof is their own to make.
The principles of the 12-Steps, though adapted from Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or you name it, even select Atheist) teachings, they really don't have anything to do with religion at all. They have a lot to do with being human. They are guides that teach people about being honest (particularly with themselves and about their addiction), having an open mind, willingness to change, willingness to amend the wrongs they have committed in the past, being accountable going forward, and participating in selfless service to others inside and outside NA. This is not about virtue; it's about how, for addicts, the opposite of these is a recipe for active addiction.
The thing about addiction is, the ego is a strong force that perpetuates cycles of arrogance and self-righteousness (among potentially many other issues). Using religion as a barrier to recovery is nothing more than an excuse to resume using. And it is certainly not the only addict-contrived excuse to get loaded. There's too many to count; and I have known dozens of people who are now dead as a result of that type of excuse and the using that followed.
The turning point for any addict is coming to terms with the trauma that created the pain they are trying to cover up. That's why honesty is so important; once that pain is out in the open, it can be dealt with and healing can occur. But that's not a simple problem to solve. The route to such clarity varies widely from one addict to another. The 12 Steps create an environment to facilitate revealing such core issues but certain issues may escape detection. Some people will require therapeutic or legal intervention (we call it "Outside Help for Outside Issues") to get "there". Some never get there and white-knuckle it to stay clean. Or kill themselves with something other than drugs.
12-Step programs like NA are NOT highly successful. I think it's about 1 in 10 that make it. Probably even less. Our stats are probably skewed by attendance coerced by the justice system; who knows, there is no science to collecting surveillance in an anonymous program. We even make efforts to let the justice system know that we are not taking attendance or verifying identities of attendees; our 12 Traditions make us resistant to such observation. This isn't the program for people who require those kinds of stats.
What I can say, when I look at the people I got clean with, the people who we hung tight together with and were committed to staying clean no matter what, nearly all of them are still clean. Many of them without relapse (including myself). And so are the serious members who were here when I arrived. Those who told me it was OK if I didn't believe in God, that I just had to be open to the idea that maybe my decision-making skills were prone to creating problems rather than solutions.
NA makes no claims of any performance. It's just a thing some people found that works for those who work it. Those being the members who don't use in-between or at meetings, come on a regular basis, work steps and serve others. Anyone else isn't actually working this program, they're doing something else. We don't insist we're the only way to recovery. We humbly accept this program comes with no guarantees. If other methods work for others, awesome! Go to what works for you, and hopefully that doesn't include a dependency on doctor-prescribed dope.
I don't know why. One of the founders of AA was atheist. He just realized that acting like a bigger entity exist helped him, so he started using it as a tool.
This does not mean that he really believed that.
I had seen several atheist and agnostics go to AA without any problems. When you have a serious problem like this that makes you loose your wife, your kids, your job, you try anything that could get you out.
When you are desperate you try anything, anything, including visiting shamans.
From my point of view the people that have problems with AA will be the hyper rational people that could not test something without knowing why they are doing that.
The problem is that when you are under the influence of drugs, your mind is not really free to think, but is strongly biased(cognition bias), so what looks from inside like common sense is not objectively. You can rationalize anything.
What the AA method does is you accepting that the solution is outside you, accepting external influence without judging. This is a necessary step, at least while the influence is very strong.
There's an extremely instructive lesson for programmers in the success and persistence of Alcoholics Anonymous. It's still around because:
* It's free
* It's decentralized
* It works
Is it the absolute best and most efficient method for treating addiction? Maybe not, but unless you have another method that works, which also does 1 and 2, it probably won't become as pervasive and long-lasting as AA.
How does this apply to programmers? Look at every dumb project that ever tried to "disrupt" email. That's a field littered with dead bodies. Email survives. Why? See above.
> An exposé of Alcoholics Anonymous, 12-step programs, and the rehab industry—and how a failed addiction-treatment model came to dominate America.
> AA has become so infused in our society that it is practically synonymous with addiction recovery. Yet the evidence shows that AA has only a 5–10 percent success rate—hardly better than no treatment at all. Despite this, doctors, employers, and judges regularly refer addicted people to treatment programs and rehab facilities based on the 12-step model.
> In The Sober Truth, acclaimed addiction specialist Dr. Lance Dodes exposes the deeply flawed science that the 12-step industry has used to support its programs. Dr. Dodes analyzes dozens of studies to reveal a startling pattern of errors, misjudgments, and biases. He also pores over the research to highlight the best peer-reviewed studies available and discovers that they reach a grim consensus on the program’s overall success.
> But The Sober Truth is more than a book about addiction. It is also a book about science and how and why AA and rehab became so popular, despite the discouraging data. Dr. Dodes explores the entire story of AA’s rise, from its origins in early fundamentalist religious and mystical beliefs to its present-day place of privilege in politics and media.
> The Sober Truth includes true stories from Dr. Dodes’s thirty-five years of clinical practice, as well as firsthand accounts submitted by addicts through an open invitation on the Psychology Today website. These stories vividly reveal the experience of walking the steps and attending some of the nation’s most famous rehabilitation centers.
> The Sober Truth builds a powerful response to the monopoly of the 12-step program and explodes the myth that these programs offer an acceptable or universal solution to the deeply personal problem of addiction. This book offers new and actionable information for addicts, their families, and medical providers, and lays out better ways to understand addiction for those seeking a more effective and compassionate approach to this treatable problem. […]
If a 12 steps program works or has worked for you, that's wonderful.
People who want to change so that they can handle their life without the trouble are welcome to attend.
There are many types of therapy. In art therapy alone, what've we got here: music, dance, writing, film, drawing, writing about problems and lists of solutions for each and for all of them (maybe only for yourself and then for others), etc.
Problem:
Solutions:
-
-
- create a list of things that are reinforcing the [un]desired behaviors
- create a plan for doing something different with/about identified triggers (problems)
(I just thought of this and decided to share)
Healing the underlying PTSD (and high blood pressure and very complex anxiety partly resulting from having adapted counterproductive coping strategies and defense mechanisms) is the objective of a number of randomized controlled clinical trials.
People who abuse substances are attempting to escape their reality because they feel powerless to change it. Educating people how to change their life is the cure.
That or changing society so people aren't powerless to fix their own destiny.
Until that happens the chemical people are addicted to is irrelevant. They can use any number of drugs to include sugar in a way that is detrimental to their health and will do so.
Tried like 10+ times now. It's not even Coke, it's sugar. Just such a powerful grip. Always relapse when a stressful time comes. Feels just the same as alcohol or cigarettes to me, but I don't feel justified in saying it's a real problem on the same level. I feel like it is though.
Just from personal experience partying with lots of drugs and drinking in the rave scene when I was in my 20s and djing and promoting, the vast vast majority of people just got tired of it one day and quit — or it interferes with their jobs or their families and they did the right thing and stopped eventually.
12 steps’s entire thing about how once you’re an addict you’re going to be one for the rest of your life is just wrong.
Sobriety startup, that's a great idea! Fixing problems, and using the fast speed of startup culture. I'm not sure if they can fix it, but it seems like unique idea.
[+] [-] Quequau|7 years ago|reply
I'm only one person and I'm fully aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data. However, the experience was so drama, and more importantly self-loathing, free and so effective, that I can't help but feel bitter towards the proponents of AA who insist on it being a monopoly... especially those in positions of power in the criminal justice or public health systems because from my perspective it's a malicious and vindictive stance.
[+] [-] markab21|7 years ago|reply
I've included it as others might find it helpful.
[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irr...
[+] [-] chasil|7 years ago|reply
Of the 85% who do respond, 75% are successful in what they are attempting.
Proponents advise you to take it for the rest of your life. Naltrexone is not costly. This is your decision.
[+] [-] BeetleB|7 years ago|reply
I remember reading a while ago that this is the main problem with 12 step programs. Not that they don't work (they often do), but the manner in which failure is viewed. With typical medical and therapy treatments, if one treatment (psychological or chemical) is not working, the attitude of the doctor is to consider other treatments. The claim was that with the 12 step program, if it doesn't work for a person, the person is the problem. The notion that the 12 step program isn't for everyone is usually absent.
[+] [-] afpx|7 years ago|reply
Two things to note about it though.
One, it’s not a quick fix. It works by inhibiting the pleasure response of alcohol. Therefore, it takes a very long time (a few months) for the brain to become re-conditioned and not associate alcohol with pleasure. During this time, one will continue to drink, but the desire to drink should gradually wane.
Two, it has a very short half-life. Therefore, it’s very easy for the brain to trick itself into not taking it. I have seen many people ‘accidently’ forget to take it before drinking. And, since the goal is to re-train thr brain, this really defeats the purpose.
Anyway, I recommend it to all of my friends. Unfortunately, it’s not well-known, so I only discovered it after doing my own research. And, then, I had to seek out doctors that even knew about it.
[+] [-] ggchappell|7 years ago|reply
Not an alcoholic, but I had extended discussions with a number of AA members some years ago. And I found that many of them also felt pretty negatively about the involvement of the justice system with AA. What happens (they said) is that people are forced to attend AA meetings as part of sentencing, but these people generally are not interested in recovery. The result is a lot of wasted time and the diversion of resources away from people who could be helped.
[+] [-] graeme|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stronico|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jyriand|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcims|7 years ago|reply
From that perspective, I can see why you would not like folks that insist on AA being a monopoly, but I'm curious about that position. I've seen a lot of people that hate AA and a lot of people that think it saved their lives, but I've never seen anyone say that AA must be the only way to sobriety. What's the angle?
[+] [-] davidandgoliath|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robertAngst|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baragiola|7 years ago|reply
In other words, if you're constantly counting the days without a drink and struggle with yourself to not drink, are you really "cured" from the addiction?
[+] [-] sobernowadays|7 years ago|reply
The community in https://reddit.com/r/stopdrinking is amazing and keeps me and many others on a sober path.
I've soon been sober for a year, and I was on a very destructive path. Would never have kept at it without that sub.
Here's how it helped me:
1. In the beginning I was hurting and feeling really isolated - posting semi-regular helped me vent and people with more sobriety under their belt gave support directly.
2. When I've been to occasions (weddings, birthday parties) that include drinking, I've been able to jump into the chat and find instant support telling me to not have the first drink.
3. There's a daily check-in where you post to pledge today's sobriety. In the beginning I pledged each day.
4. I have a badge by my name that keeps track of each day I've been sober. Having to reset that to zero is more motivating than you might believe at first.
5. I now comment on other users posts, trying to keep their mood up and push them to not drink by giving them support.
Also, the community and mods are superb, kind people.
[+] [-] randomacct3847|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PakG1|7 years ago|reply
Nerdy, socially awkward me at the time couldn't think of a comeback and I felt embarrassed that I didn't get her a beer or cocktail. But I was also really annoyed, like logically, why am I the embarrassed one here? Today's me would have a lot more confidence and some witty comebacks. :)
But... part of me wonders... how much did that guy really believe what he was saying, and how much was that guy also just a scared kid inside trying to act cool and fit in due to the imagery he's been bombarded with?
[+] [-] virgilp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matwood|7 years ago|reply
I do like beer and wine so I will have one on occasion. I found it makes them actually taste better, as I savor it now.
Some other side benefits is that it saves a TON of money, and I consume less calories. Alcohol is expensive, particularly in a bar or restaurant. Less calories is obvious.
[+] [-] UweSchmidt|7 years ago|reply
These days it is mostly acceptable to decline alcohol.
[+] [-] saghm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drdeadringer|7 years ago|reply
I agree.
About a month ago I went to a social event where we would be doing XYZ. We finished our task and trundled for lunch; "when is the bar going to be open" was a common lament. All I wanted was to buy and eat pizza; which I did, but others were so very happy when the bartender showed up.
And this was lunch time. "Noon", for example. Martinis were wanted. I just wanted pizza.
It all worked out. But it was worth mentioning.
[+] [-] mgamache|7 years ago|reply
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443....
https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-surpr...
https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/alcohol-addiction/7-thing...
[+] [-] whiddershins|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] coleifer|7 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] derefr|7 years ago|reply
Basically, if you want to “translate” the AA steps for the modern era where things aren’t so culturally-Christian, try replacing “God” with “a Church congregation-community”, where a “Church” is any social technology designed for taking a group of average people and trying to extract the best, most empathetic/humanist/“moral” group behavior out of them.
When AA says to rely on the “power of God” which is “strong” while your own willpower is “weak”, what they’re really saying, stripping away the culturally-Christian assumptions, is to rely on the social technology of a Church-like organization to amplify and backstop your willpower in various ways.
• Most Church-like organizations, regardless of religion, have a membership that strive to practice moderation in things like drinking, so switching your “community” to be that of the Church-like organization means switching your friends (maybe people who love to go out and get drunk?) for people who don’t. (This is a similar idea to why some people say prisoners are better off paroled: the last people you want prisoners around are other prisoners. You want them around good role-models, not bad ones, if you want them rehabilitated.)
• Most Church-like organizations provide access to a confidant and therapist (in Christian churches, that’d be the priest.) If you bond with this confidant-and-therapist figure, you’ll feel less bad about temporary failures, because you’ll have someone to tell who will help you get back on the horse, rather than shunning you for your failure.
• In most Church-like organizations, if you don’t attend the regular community meetings, the community members will get worried about you and check up on you. This will help prevent you from degenerating further after falling off the wagon.
AA is already a bridge between two worlds; although it is constructed under a culturally-Christian lens, it assumes that its attendeees are not necessarily members of any Church-like organization. So one of the goals of AA group meetings is to be a Church-like organization, for people who don’t attend Church. It pushes you “back” toward the Christian Church because it knows it can’t help you forever and wants you to find a more permanent Church-like organization to help you. This is similar to how psychiatrists encourage people who are stable on a maintenance dose of some drug to stop seeing them, by instead getting a family doctor (if they don’t already have one) and getting the family doctor to perscribe the maintenance dose of the drug.
I think that, while AA could be rephrased to not be culturally-Christian, it’d be very hard to replace its insistence on accepting some kind of religious Church-like organization into your life... because there really just aren’t that many non-religious Church-like organizations. If there were, maybe there’d be fewer alcoholics.
[+] [-] pgt|7 years ago|reply
Specifically, on the topic of addiction: "Ibogaine-treated rodents exhibit attenuated opioid withdrawal symptoms, and diminished self-administration of a variety of drugs of abuse, including opioids, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol. Anecdotal evidence suggests that ibogaine is also anti-addictive in humans." [^2]
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials show that a single dose of LSD had a beneficial effect on alcohol misuse (OR, 1.95, 95% CI, p=0.0003). [^3]
As we get better at modelling our own bodies, hopefully we can start to selectively replace or suppress some of our out-dated control systems to reduce suffering and increase efficiency while retaining our survivability.
Citations:
- [^1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5672987/ - [^2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382526/ - [^3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406913
[+] [-] ThrustVectoring|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] max76|7 years ago|reply
[0] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/news/la-heb-sheen-aa... [1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addic... [2] https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/addiction-treatme...
[+] [-] thelasthuman|7 years ago|reply
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 mature adults with no driving force behind it.
[+] [-] sverige|7 years ago|reply
I left AA when I became a christian 15 years ago. (Yes, I started AA young, as a teenager.)
All that is background for these strongly held opinions:
1. AA is decidedly not christian. If anything, it is a mere cult with some christian trappings and actually some occult underpinnings. No one ever heard the gospel at an AA meeting. It's not synonymous with christianity.
2. AA's recovery rate is abysmal, and actually less successful than just doing nothing about addiction. There is lots of room for providing much more effective help for people with addictions.
3. The practice of forcing people to attend AA meetings under court order should be stopped entirely.
I know that most here are likely not christian and some are openly hostile. That's a completely different discussion than helping addicts to recover.
A good resource for the many failings of AA can be found at the Orange Papers site. It seems the original site is down, but I believe someone has mirrored it elsewhere. Lots of info on the strange origins of AA there.
[+] [-] walrus01|7 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymou...
[+] [-] thrownaway954|7 years ago|reply
https://secularaa.org/tsml_meeting/
[+] [-] bsagdiyev|7 years ago|reply
The "as we understood Him", while most likely still referring to God, is what is used to mean whatever works for you even if it isn't God but something you can believe in as much to help you, which then opens the door for substituting God in the later steps for your version (or not) of him.
My personal opinion is that I find the program a bit cultish and don't agree that telling people they are helpless is the right way to help them, but that's my opinion and I respect that the program works for some people.
[+] [-] Throwaway12step|7 years ago|reply
As an openly Atheist member of Narcotics Anonymous, with 23 years clean time, I'm here to say Christianity as a barrier to recovery is a matter of personal choice. Yes, I'm an Atheist with a higher power, it's my [G]roup [O]f [D]rug addicts. I kibitz with them about how to stop using, losing the desire to use and finding a new way to live. The Third Tradition of any 12-Step Fellowship clearly says there is only one requirement for membership. In the case of NA, that requirement is a desire to stop using. AA states a desire to stop drinking. They literally cannot kick you out for choosing a secular life. In my experience, anything beyond a brief mention of someone's faith or Atheism is frowned upon, because every addict's choice of a higher power or lack thereof is their own to make.
The principles of the 12-Steps, though adapted from Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or you name it, even select Atheist) teachings, they really don't have anything to do with religion at all. They have a lot to do with being human. They are guides that teach people about being honest (particularly with themselves and about their addiction), having an open mind, willingness to change, willingness to amend the wrongs they have committed in the past, being accountable going forward, and participating in selfless service to others inside and outside NA. This is not about virtue; it's about how, for addicts, the opposite of these is a recipe for active addiction.
The thing about addiction is, the ego is a strong force that perpetuates cycles of arrogance and self-righteousness (among potentially many other issues). Using religion as a barrier to recovery is nothing more than an excuse to resume using. And it is certainly not the only addict-contrived excuse to get loaded. There's too many to count; and I have known dozens of people who are now dead as a result of that type of excuse and the using that followed.
The turning point for any addict is coming to terms with the trauma that created the pain they are trying to cover up. That's why honesty is so important; once that pain is out in the open, it can be dealt with and healing can occur. But that's not a simple problem to solve. The route to such clarity varies widely from one addict to another. The 12 Steps create an environment to facilitate revealing such core issues but certain issues may escape detection. Some people will require therapeutic or legal intervention (we call it "Outside Help for Outside Issues") to get "there". Some never get there and white-knuckle it to stay clean. Or kill themselves with something other than drugs.
12-Step programs like NA are NOT highly successful. I think it's about 1 in 10 that make it. Probably even less. Our stats are probably skewed by attendance coerced by the justice system; who knows, there is no science to collecting surveillance in an anonymous program. We even make efforts to let the justice system know that we are not taking attendance or verifying identities of attendees; our 12 Traditions make us resistant to such observation. This isn't the program for people who require those kinds of stats.
What I can say, when I look at the people I got clean with, the people who we hung tight together with and were committed to staying clean no matter what, nearly all of them are still clean. Many of them without relapse (including myself). And so are the serious members who were here when I arrived. Those who told me it was OK if I didn't believe in God, that I just had to be open to the idea that maybe my decision-making skills were prone to creating problems rather than solutions.
NA makes no claims of any performance. It's just a thing some people found that works for those who work it. Those being the members who don't use in-between or at meetings, come on a regular basis, work steps and serve others. Anyone else isn't actually working this program, they're doing something else. We don't insist we're the only way to recovery. We humbly accept this program comes with no guarantees. If other methods work for others, awesome! Go to what works for you, and hopefully that doesn't include a dependency on doctor-prescribed dope.
[+] [-] hevi_jos|7 years ago|reply
This does not mean that he really believed that.
I had seen several atheist and agnostics go to AA without any problems. When you have a serious problem like this that makes you loose your wife, your kids, your job, you try anything that could get you out.
When you are desperate you try anything, anything, including visiting shamans.
From my point of view the people that have problems with AA will be the hyper rational people that could not test something without knowing why they are doing that.
The problem is that when you are under the influence of drugs, your mind is not really free to think, but is strongly biased(cognition bias), so what looks from inside like common sense is not objectively. You can rationalize anything.
What the AA method does is you accepting that the solution is outside you, accepting external influence without judging. This is a necessary step, at least while the influence is very strong.
[+] [-] beatpanda|7 years ago|reply
* It's free * It's decentralized * It works
Is it the absolute best and most efficient method for treating addiction? Maybe not, but unless you have another method that works, which also does 1 and 2, it probably won't become as pervasive and long-lasting as AA.
How does this apply to programmers? Look at every dumb project that ever tried to "disrupt" email. That's a field littered with dead bodies. Email survives. Why? See above.
[+] [-] gammateam|7 years ago|reply
I had no idea it was so religious
I found this to be a bug, not a feature
It is interesting to see other methods being tried instead of masquarading the 12-step programs longevity as absolute validation
[+] [-] TheSoberTruth|7 years ago|reply
> An exposé of Alcoholics Anonymous, 12-step programs, and the rehab industry—and how a failed addiction-treatment model came to dominate America.
> AA has become so infused in our society that it is practically synonymous with addiction recovery. Yet the evidence shows that AA has only a 5–10 percent success rate—hardly better than no treatment at all. Despite this, doctors, employers, and judges regularly refer addicted people to treatment programs and rehab facilities based on the 12-step model.
> In The Sober Truth, acclaimed addiction specialist Dr. Lance Dodes exposes the deeply flawed science that the 12-step industry has used to support its programs. Dr. Dodes analyzes dozens of studies to reveal a startling pattern of errors, misjudgments, and biases. He also pores over the research to highlight the best peer-reviewed studies available and discovers that they reach a grim consensus on the program’s overall success.
> But The Sober Truth is more than a book about addiction. It is also a book about science and how and why AA and rehab became so popular, despite the discouraging data. Dr. Dodes explores the entire story of AA’s rise, from its origins in early fundamentalist religious and mystical beliefs to its present-day place of privilege in politics and media.
> The Sober Truth includes true stories from Dr. Dodes’s thirty-five years of clinical practice, as well as firsthand accounts submitted by addicts through an open invitation on the Psychology Today website. These stories vividly reveal the experience of walking the steps and attending some of the nation’s most famous rehabilitation centers.
> The Sober Truth builds a powerful response to the monopoly of the 12-step program and explodes the myth that these programs offer an acceptable or universal solution to the deeply personal problem of addiction. This book offers new and actionable information for addicts, their families, and medical providers, and lays out better ways to understand addiction for those seeking a more effective and compassionate approach to this treatable problem. […]
[+] [-] TheSoberTruth|7 years ago|reply
People who want to change so that they can handle their life without the trouble are welcome to attend.
There are many types of therapy. In art therapy alone, what've we got here: music, dance, writing, film, drawing, writing about problems and lists of solutions for each and for all of them (maybe only for yourself and then for others), etc.
Problem:
Solutions:
-
-
- create a list of things that are reinforcing the [un]desired behaviors
- create a plan for doing something different with/about identified triggers (problems)
(I just thought of this and decided to share)
Healing the underlying PTSD (and high blood pressure and very complex anxiety partly resulting from having adapted counterproductive coping strategies and defense mechanisms) is the objective of a number of randomized controlled clinical trials.
Developing evidence-based treatment programs requires randomization and controls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
[+] [-] geggam|7 years ago|reply
That or changing society so people aren't powerless to fix their own destiny.
Until that happens the chemical people are addicted to is irrelevant. They can use any number of drugs to include sugar in a way that is detrimental to their health and will do so.
[+] [-] james_s_tayler|7 years ago|reply
Tried like 10+ times now. It's not even Coke, it's sugar. Just such a powerful grip. Always relapse when a stressful time comes. Feels just the same as alcohol or cigarettes to me, but I don't feel justified in saying it's a real problem on the same level. I feel like it is though.
Anyone else?
[+] [-] empath75|7 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/arti...
Just from personal experience partying with lots of drugs and drinking in the rave scene when I was in my 20s and djing and promoting, the vast vast majority of people just got tired of it one day and quit — or it interferes with their jobs or their families and they did the right thing and stopped eventually.
12 steps’s entire thing about how once you’re an addict you’re going to be one for the rest of your life is just wrong.
[+] [-] bunkydoo|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aaron695|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] b0bby_tabl3s|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GoodJokes|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vertline3|7 years ago|reply