>refuses any objective evaluation of its efficacy, or changing its methods.
The reason AA works is it refuses to change. It refuses to follow fads. It makes it imperfect but also makes it very resistant to politics.
> actively resists any data collection about the efficacy of its techniques whatsoever.
Because it's Anonymous. This is part of what it is. Sucks, but that's what it is. It's an important part.
> it's super churchy.
True, it's full of atheists though, I'd be interested to see if it has more atheists than the general population. But true it does use a cult model for positive change.
> There was no science whatsoever involved in AA
But there is solid science that backs AA. Even if it was started without a scientific underlying idea.
People love to bag out AA, but as your last line says it is working for some people, studies back this.
In a future utopia where healthcare is free and drug abuse is treated appropriately there might be better but we can't toss out one of the best treatments while we wait.
The article is about family (Nar-Anon) and opioids (NA) so my comment is all a bit OT.
But let's take CRAFT from the article, without the culty bit of Al-Anon/Nar-Anon, which CRAFT removes, can it be self sustainable across the world? If not, then is it really a better cure.
> Because it's Anonymous. This is part of what it is. Sucks, but that's what it is. It's an important part.
Dude, there is no reason you can't collect medical data responsibly and with respect to privacy. Cmon man. We do a whole lot of this, all over the place. They can, they just won't.
> But there is solid science that backs AA. Even if it was started without a scientific underlying idea.
> People love to bag out AA, but as your last line says it is working for some people, studies back this.
It would be untrue and unfair to say that there's nothing to AA. It's been successful, but how successful? Compared to what? IMHO, the greatest aspect of its success is its ability to let people off the hook. This is just a way for politicians to throw some 'thoughts and prayers' at a hard problem and call it good.
It's not good. It's not all bad, but you start digging into the social science research and there's a lot of progress that's been made since the 30's that AA just won't touch. AA isn't working for a whole lot of people.
But it's cheap and it doesn't trigger certain populations within our democratic society, so it's gone on and on. I think we're running out of road here, but... well, we'll have to see.
The reason AA works is it refuses to change. It refuses to follow fads. It makes it imperfect but also makes it very resistant to politics.
> actively resists any data collection about the efficacy of its techniques whatsoever.
Because it's Anonymous. This is part of what it is. Sucks, but that's what it is. It's an important part.
> it's super churchy.
True, it's full of atheists though, I'd be interested to see if it has more atheists than the general population. But true it does use a cult model for positive change.
> There was no science whatsoever involved in AA
But there is solid science that backs AA. Even if it was started without a scientific underlying idea.
People love to bag out AA, but as your last line says it is working for some people, studies back this.
In a future utopia where healthcare is free and drug abuse is treated appropriately there might be better but we can't toss out one of the best treatments while we wait.
The article is about family (Nar-Anon) and opioids (NA) so my comment is all a bit OT.
But let's take CRAFT from the article, without the culty bit of Al-Anon/Nar-Anon, which CRAFT removes, can it be self sustainable across the world? If not, then is it really a better cure.