Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Dry drunk

This phrase is used by 12 steppers against people who will not convert to the 12 step witchcraft religion. It has no valid meaning other that its religious persecution use.

There is an entry in Wiki for "Dry drunk". I have just finished editing it and have explained my reasoning on the Dry Drunk discussion page. Maybe it used to be here and was removed? I don't know that it deserves its own entry, but I would not argue strongly to bring it back. It is AA-speak, is it not? If anyone has any scientifically valid references about it, maybe you should take a look.Desoto10 (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Flaherty, J.A. (1955). "The Psychodynamics of The "Dry Drunk"". The American journal of psychiatry. 112 (6): 460–464. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.112.6.460. ISSN 0002-953X. PMID 13275595. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Such articles can be found using the research method I suggested previously. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Which shows you the value of that particular technique! 1955? Oh come on.Desoto10 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The value of psychodynamics? I wonder what Freud would say about someone asking for scientifically valid references, who then responds sarcastically when somebody offers one? If you're looking for something newer than 1955, not only would be be a good idea to say so when you ask, but you'll also want to have a look at the other 247 Google Scholar results. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the value of using "Google Scholar" whenever somebody requests a citation. If GS is so great, why not just put a link to it at the top of every page? Oops, I see you have been banned for a month. I hope it was not about anything here--you aren't THAT bad.Desoto10 (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and it seems to have been writen based on this source [1] which is the first source referenced, and also the source they copied the entire article from at first. Personaly I wouldn't include it, since in my experience it is a phrase used to "other" (to use a cultrual studies phrase) people in recovery, and shame them into doing what you think they should be doing...and its definition varries depending on who is using it or it is beeing used to.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea where all of the Bush stuff was coming from.Desoto10 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It could follow under 13th stepping in the criticism section, it is used alot in 12 step meetings, I agree with Coffepusher assessment , but possibly it could be put in under criticism as it has no medical merit to back it up.-- What the article in counter punch is addressing is a personality disorder, {very hard to treat} that AA'ers believe their program will cure. 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Fred

Vaillant did some research on personality change after sobriety. The 'alcoholic personality' can take months to fade. If you're interested I can dig it up. — DavidMack (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment about Peele in Project Match Section

This comment seems odd: Other researchers stated that "AA has rarely been investigated with the kind of rigorous methological attention it received in Project MATCH." [41]

As has been mentioned before, Match did not evaluate "AA". So, just like Dr. Gordis' statement, I don't know what to do about it. The investigators apparently did say this in a peer-reviewed journal article (that I have not read), but it is wrong. If we need to say something positive about Match, then I don't think that should be too difficult.Desoto10 (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case it should be deleted --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Fred

I put it back in. It is a comment on MATCH from a reliable, academic source. — DavidMack (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to be gone, as far as I can tell66.120.181.218 (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

MATCH evaluated AA indirectly. As stated in the article, direct, randomised trials are difficult or impossible with AA, so the best research available on AA is always indirect. — DavidMack (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that Cutler and Fishbain criticise MATCH based on results from zero-treatment group, and also that Peele accuses MATCH of not having a zero-treatment group. Can someone please explain this? Also, would the person who put in the Cutler and Fishbain critique be willing to add the MATCH rebuttal? Thanks. — DavidMack (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless , it is clearly stated Project Match did not evaluate AA. Your comment does not belong in Critics of Project Match.

Science for Dumb People . A control group is a control group, it is not people who sign up to take part in one of the three treatments then drop out.

There is no real data provided on AA attendance, regardless of Tonigans claim. In fact if you put Tonigan in , there was no real data in the study to back up Tonigans remarks. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC) In fact The Project MATCH Research Group (1997) reported that only one hypothetical "match" was clearly supported by the data. This proposed that clients with low psychiatric severity would do best in the 12-step facilitation condition. The results showed that these clients had more abstinent days during six and twelve months of follow-up than those treated with cognitive behavioural therapy. However, the extent to which clients in either condition became involved in AA during the follow-up period has not been reported.

That is not rigouress investigation. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the qualifier on research follow up: in the outpatient group only, less psychiatrically severe subjects had 4 more abstinent days per month on average in TSF than in CBT treatment. from Peeles article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAlbert (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we might be arguing about two distinct issues:

1. Did Project Match "study" AA?

2. How to handle the views of critics of Project Match.

As for 1, it is clear that TSF therapy is NOT AA, but, as DavidMack keeps saying, it is pretty much all we have to work with if we want studies that randomly assign subjects to different therapies.

The second point seems to me to be more difficult to deal with as much of the criticism of the Match study does not relate to the results of the study itself, but to the (sometimes incorrect) commmentary about the study. My take is that the Match study did what it set out to do: determine if outcomes were better for patients assigned to different treatments based on the patient's scores on psychological tests. By and large, and certainly for the initial reports, there was no such effect--subjects did pretty much the same no matter what treatment group they were assigned to. All fine and good so far. But then some individuals made claims about how the study showed how good current treatments are, resulting in a dogpile of criticism because the study was not designed for determining absolute treatment effects. Does this make any sense? I think that the Match study could be summarized in one or two sentances (maybe just the way it is now), with the caveat that some investigators made claims about the results of the study that are not backed by the study and that others critisize both the study and the claims. The rebuttle to C&F by the Match PI strongly implies that the statement by Gordis was either wrong or taken out of context.Desoto10 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in this article certain users tend to generate a flood of copy, and others have to pare it down to what is concise, reliable and relevant. — DavidMack (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to repeat a question from above: The article states that Cutler and Fishbain criticise MATCH based on results from zero-treatment group, and also that Peele accuses MATCH of not having a zero-treatment group. Can someone please explain this? Also, would the person who put in the Cutler and Fishbain critique be willing to add the MATCH rebuttal? Thanks. (Again.) — DavidMack (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David--Yes, go ahead and add it. I like the rebuttal because it points out that much of the complaining about MATCH is due to that fact that it was misinterpreted by the media and, indeed, even the director of NIAAA (or he was misquoted).Desoto10 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the rebuttal ever got added. Somebody should, if they can - they present some extremely complex arguments and it will take someone with a sound understanding of stats and an ability to translate those stats into "laymans terms". I for one struggled reading through the whole thing. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian 2008 Study

Do Alcoholics Anonymous Groups Really Work? Factors of Adherence in a Brazilian Sample of Hospitalized Alcohol Dependents

“ Abstract: This study was designed to determine factors affecting adherence to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups. This cohort involved 300 alcoholics committed to three hospitals in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They were interviewed again in their homes after six months. The SCID-I and a questionnaire focusing on patient relationship with AA groups were used. The responses obtained through the questionnaire were independently evaluated by two researchers. AA adherence was below 20%. The main factors reported by patients as reasons for non-adherence to AA were relapse, lack of identification with the method, lack of need, and lack of credibility. The factors reported by patients as reasons for adherence were identification with the method and a way to avoid relapse. Although AA is considered an effective intervention for alcoholism, its adherence rate was excessively low. The identification of these nonadherence factors could help health professionals in referring certain alcoholic patients to therapeutic interventions other than AA. ”

Would provide more of an international world view. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks interesting and relevant. Is it a reliable source? — DavidMack (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good source. I would love to see the whole article. I am particularly interested to see if there is any mention of the impact of Catholicism on AA adherence. This is just an assumption, but I assume that the study group would be close to 100% Catholic.Desoto10 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Atkins 2007

Chins up fellows:

This was added to attrition, I moved it to studies, however I do have my doubts as it was a survey not a study. Input appreciated:

Randolph G. Atkins Jr Ph.D.a, and James E. Hawdon Ph.D.b aThe Walsh Group, Bethesda, MD 20817, USA bDepartment of Sociology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA Received 29 January 2007; revised 15 June 2007; accepted 1 July 2007. Available online 20 September 2007.

Abstract Mutual-aid support groups play a vital role in substance abuse treatment in the United States. A national survey of mutual-aid support groups for addiction was conducted to identify key differences between participants in recovery groups. Survey data indicate that active involvement in support groups significantly improves one's chances of remaining clean and sober, regardless of the group in which one participates. Respondents whose individual beliefs better matched those of their primary support groups showed greater levels of group participation, resulting in better outcomes as measured by increased number of days clean and sober. Religious respondents were more likely to participate in 12-step groups and Women for Sobriety. Nonreligious respondents were significantly less likely to participate in 12-step groups. Religiosity had little impact on SMART Recovery participation but actually decreased participation in Secular Organizations for Sobriety. These results have important implications for treatment planning and matching individuals to appropriate support groups. Freddydog (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is on CiteULike: http://www.citeulike.org/article/2002656

I recommended this article privately to Step13 awhile back, I think it's worth adding. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This also seems to be the opinion of many steppers [2]. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandsma Et Al

Have just received my copy of the Oupatient Treatment of Alcoholism p. 115

Note 1/3 of the Book is comprised of Appendices.

Overall the results indicate coerced attendance to AA is not recommended. Chapter 9 conclusions:

1. AA had the most dropouts of all therapies 2. AA & RBT had the least number of sessions for those who didn't drop out 3. Treatment of any type was better than the control group 4. Insight and Pro RBT were the best in the number of days dry.

In 3 month after terminating treatment, the AA group had increased their binge drinking, some in the AA group said it made them feel superior. p. 106--Freddydog (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an alcoholic personality, there are some common traits.p. 25

1. strong tendency to regress under stress 2. Primitive defense mechanisms..acting out in aggressivley and sexually when drunk but acting different when sober 3. massive usuage of denial 4. Dependency on enviromental supports..he has learned to provoke the enviroment to act on his behalf 5. Naricissitc, ego centric and passive demanding behaviors other individuasl are objects to be manipulated into taking care of ones needs.

People with these structures in their personality get caught in cycles of frustration and pain,

--Freddydog (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Project MATCH fork

Project MATCH should really have it's own article. There were almost 70 peer-reviewed articles based on it. It is arguable about whether or not it belongs in this article, but is at least worth mentioning in it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to craig?

Been off of wiki for a month or so now, due to sheer annoyance at an old WP:3O decision. Come back to see craig is banned, and also seems to have deleted his account. Anyone know the whats and whys behind this? I may email him when I get back to work, as i have his email there, but if he has deleted his account, then he may not want to hear from me. Wondered if anyone else could shed some light. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Craig was blocked for apparent repeated vandalism on the Justine Ezarik page, and soon after invoked his WP:RTV privileges. My guess is that he just had a bad few days, and I look forward to seeing him back under a new name. PhGustaf (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Shame he left over something so innocuous as that - sounds like a pretty tame case of vandalism, a reasonably deserving target and an excessive ban. I also hope that he will be back - it probably is only a few bad days, but sometimes it can be good to get a break. Despite some major fallings out, I always enjoyed "sparring" with Craig. He also put in an awful lot of work to this page and did a whole lot of research. Would be a shame to lose him. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tonigan quote

This quote by Tonigan: "Tonigan and colleagues stated that "AA has rarely been investigated with the kind of rigorous methological attention it received in Project MATCH." [41] seems out of place. We went to great lenghts to emphasize that MATCH did NOT evaluate AA, but, rather incorporated 12-step facilitation. Then comes a quote saying that it is the BEST study ever of Alcoholics Anonymous. Yes, I am sure he said it, just like Gordis said what he said, but I wonder if quotes from experts when the subject (and their opinions) are controversial really help out. If I were a reader of this section, I would be confused.Desoto10 (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/match.jsp in which TSF is clearly distinguished from AA

and

http://www.peele.net/lib/projmach.html in which Peele references the above article

I think we should remove said quote. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)