Posted on 03/17/2015 9:25:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Nonsense. AA had been a spectacular success in literally millions of lives for well over a half-century. Denying that is unconscionable.
Nevertheless, thanks for the warning.
You misunderstand, I'm not trying to help you. I just want to make sure that once you're in hell, you can't get out.
I never denied its success.
You misunderstand, I'm not trying to help you. I just want to make sure that once you're in hell, you can't get out.
YOU misunderstand...I was patronizing you.
While admitting my somewhat limited experience, your statement seems impossible.
Thanks for the confirmation.
I am a non-drinker, but, everyone has personal problems that have to be overcome. Sometimes you can do it alone. Sometimes you can’t.
“But when you start getting into concepts like “dry drunk,” “sponsorship,” and similar apocryphal beliefs, I need more than “success” for validation.”
I guess I’m not really clear on what you mean. For me “dry drunk” is simply someone who does not presenly drink that has not made the neccessary changes in their lifestyle that led them to abusing alcohol in the first place and therefor may not translate in long term sobriety.
Sponsorship is just a term appllied to a friend and mentor that can help walk a person through recovery to be utilized or not depending on the individual.
Unlike a religion which should never be confused with AA, the “authenticity” of these concepts are dependent on the interpretation of the individual involved and what significance or not it my have for them.
I do happen to believe however that success can ultimately lead to validation.
Having been a (degreed, licensed and certified) workers comp case manager for many years, I can relate to your comments professionally-and personally as well from a couple of life experiences.
It was not/is not uncommon for injured clients to abuse alcohol and prescription drugs to self medicate for pain. Sometimes, it was so problematic that the insurance carrier would label it as secondary to injury, and authorize therapy as part of that individual’s return-to-work plan.
AA was a choice provided, as well as several professional therapists-but some clients were resistant to professional therapy, so they would go to AA/NA and many went home after meetings lecturing family and friends, became intolerant, condemning and rude, insisting they were embarked on a program best for them, and too bad it was selfish.
Many lost spouses and families to divorce, which prompted the families to call the insurance carrier and the company I worked for, insisting it was all our fault even though the client had chosen his/her therapy provider-one family even filed a suit-talk about co-dependent behavior...
I’ve walked away from dear friends I’ve known since college who became enmeshed in AA and its affiliates, simply because their involvement magnified all their most obnoxious personality traits-I may miss them, but not enough to listen to them for more than 10 minutes at a time. That is just my own experience-results may vary with each individual...
So happy for you. My brother has also been helped by AA.
That’s too bad.
I don't have any problem at all with naltrexone as a therapy. Ultimately, what matters is how the individual feels.
As for me, I would guess that I was a serious case, and coming into AA in the late 80's, AA presented me with the best chance of recovery that I was aware of. Many years later, I am still active in AA; I enjoy the steps and the fellowship, and see no reason to try these alternate means.
In addition to my problem with alcohol, I had a not too small problem with morality. And I'm certain that AA has helped me there as well, not to say that church could not have done the same thing.
Anyway, I find the debate between recovery choices to be unnecessary. Let's use anything that works, and let the patient judge for themselves if it has given them the desired result. As for me, I hope to keep sitting around the tables, and being available to anyone who needs a companion to trudge the road to happy destiny.
The clergyman came back and told them "This is 1st Century Christianity. Noboduy practices it anymore."
They asked him why.
His response: “It's too damn hard”.
That “dry drunk” explanation was what the families of my clients always got when they complained.
A couple of my oldest friends are totally rooted in AA-one of them has made AA his whole life for over 20 years-becoming a sponsor and believing he is some kind of a guru. He literally has no life, friends, etc outside of his AA meeting place. He has been married 4 times since he first started in AA.
I seldom answer my phone if one of them calls or texts, but if that fantasy works for them, that is okay-one size does not fit all-that is why there are so many therapies for substance available...
Should have said “substance abuse”...
“That “dry drunk” explanation was what the families of my clients always got when they complained.”
I’m confused, complained... to whom, about what?
For doctors though, the problem is that AA does not address chemical dependency. Funny thing is for most it isn’t a chemical dependency, but a habit (you brain reacts to triggers that you associate with drinking). Read “The Power of Habit”
Oh I agree empirical evidence is not to be ignored. My dad always said "you can't argue with performance."
Nevertheless, the truth or falsehood of chakras and meridians is immaterial for a needle in a nerve bundle to cause a decrease in related neurological activity.
The AA experience has so much belief/faith (in AA) based content that it IS quasi-religious, and therefore extraordinarily resistant to anything heterodox, much less something so blasphemous as "optimization!" As such, you can see by the responses on this thread, the derision piled on a researcher with the audacity to suggest they might have a better way.
My best friend was an alcoholic. A two bottle of Goldslagger a weeknight drinker. He stopped 16 years ago.
I have only seen him drink twice since then. The first was the day my grandpa died. Grandpa meant a lot to him, and to me, and my friend had a shot of Scotch with me to remember grandpa by. That was it, one shot, and I begged him not to (he didn’t like Scotch).
The second time was at my wedding. He had champain for the toast. And that was it. He kept smoking the whole time though.
There is no way to know for sure. I have known people who swear it worked for them, but the actual percentage of people who succeed through AA verses other methods, or even just going cold turkey will never be known because of AA's anonymity (the second"A").
“...derision piled on a researcher with the audacity to suggest they might have a better way.”
I believe the negative reactions to this article are for several reasons: 1. The self righteous condiscention displayed in the title to a program that has helped 10s of millions over the decades. 2.The fact that it is written by a raging liberal/progressive rag. 3.The gratuitous attacks of a program where spituality, relationship with a higher power ie. God is such an integral part of it’s whole. 4. The implication that anyone who might utilize such a program might not sharpest knife in the drawer. 5. The fact that so many charletons over the years have represented many of the same things as this article claims with oftentimes catastrophic results.
To name a few.
Dam! a Schnapps alcoholic.
First, one I’ve ever heard of.
And you believe any of the things you list fall outside the scope of my thesis...where?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.