popeye1250
Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006 From: New Hampshire Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee Fascinating links, HK. A detail within the second one, worthy of perusal, http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant Valliant is one of the leaders of the AA movement yet his own research shows that AA is no more effective than no treatment at all. Check out the charts a page or so down (especially the death statistics). Lucky - I hope you were able to hound (no pun intended) that asshole out of his position. Creeps who use places of authority to sexually abuse vulnerable people are amongst the worst sorts of sex criminals. It is so wrong on so many levels. ***** Another general observation - the AA 12 steps is referred to as a "program", which I’d suggest it is not. It is a limited and rather vague checklist of suggestions, many repetitive or redundant. It has no structure or process. AA, seems to leave too much to the whims of local operators and members when it comes to specifics of treatment. But this hasn’t stopped A.A. and associated groups from being touted as the gold standard for addiction treatment – a standard they fail to meet, according to Dr. Valliant’s own studies. It does not appear to work any better than no treatment at all and, in some cases, is the least effective compared to no treatment or to treatment at a dedicated clinic. Courts, probation officers, therapists, doctors, friends, pastors, advice columnists, routinely direct addicts to A.A. and its kin, assuming they are effective. That’s a disturbing habit, considering. In its introductory pages, A.A. has a questionnaire entitled Is A.A. For You? Actually the questions identify if you might have a drinking problem, not the suitability of A.A. for your situation. This sort of misdirection and a penchant for self promotion and recruiting (See step 12 of the program), smack more of proof by numbers (of members) than any objective measure of effectiveness. It “works” because lots of people agree to agree that it does and repeat that to each other in a cycle of proof by affirmation and agreement. Z. Good post Zensee and very accurate I think. I was in and out of AA for years staying sober for maybe 3 to 4 months at a time. I think it's good in the beginning for someone who maybe needs a little help getting off the sauce but some people go way overboard going to 2 to 3 "meetings" every day! I've been sober for more than two years now and I attribute it to daily prayer and I'm not a religious person. I never liked a lot of those "steps" either, especially about "making amends" anyone I fucked over had it comming in spades and if I could find some of them now I'd probably wack them. Real no good bastards. I was one of the lucky ones, or, skillfull. I never lost my liscense because I was pretty responsable and I could also afford cab fare, or because I didn't mind walking or because I'd just drink at home. Anyone who loses their liscense these days for drinking is just plain stupid. A $100 cab ride is FAR cheaper than a DUI.
_____________________________
"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"
|