- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 0
Okay, so before last night I had only a vague conception of Alcoholics Anonymous. We all know there's the part where you get up and say, "Hi, my name's so-and-so, and I'm an Alcoholic." I knew there was something in there about getting help from other reforming drunks, that step 5 or so was making amends to people you hurt whilst drinking, and so on and so forth. Seemed like a positive, uplifting thing.
Then last night I watched an episode of Penn & Teller: BS! where their sole topic of alleged BS was AA. At first I was surprised; I thought AA was a good thing. But in the course of the episode they raised some interesting points.
Firstly, a number of the steps require you to believe in a higher power of some kind. Even if you consider that open enough for a majority of religious beliefs, they pointed out how this was very problematic for Atheists, and how the official AA headquarters is in the "Interchurch Building" and their offices are covered in things containing scripture and little poems about God.
Okay, religious, but still a positive thing, right? Maybe not. Penn pointed out how the 12 steps require you to consider yourself powerless, worthless, less than nothing, before you can possibly get better. You don't put any faith in yourself, you put faith in someone else. If you read the 12 steps again, he's dead on. It very much gives the impression that you, the addict, are a worthless piece of crap.
The thing I found most interesting -- and potentially disturbing -- were the published statistics on how many people AA reforms in a year. Specifically, there are none. (At least, that's what P & T claim, though I doubt they made this up) Furthermore they presented an internal report from 1989 they managed to get (Penn said, "seriously, it was the only thing we could get") that said that the number of drunks reformed was steadily declining, roughly 50% of the people who showed up for the first time were not going to meetings three months later, and how the estimated percentage of successes as it stood when the report was done was roughly 5%. "And what's the percentage of Acoholics who kick the habit on their own with no help? 5%," said Penn.
Now in general I trust Penn & Teller. (Unless Penn says, "don't worry, this trick isn't scary.") But these are some pretty serious claims. I'm wondering if anybody can back up or refute what they've claimed with linkable or able-to-be-found-in-a-library proof. I'd also like to hear some input from any 12-steppers, reformed alcoholics/addicts who didn't use 12-step, or anybody who knows such people. Or if you just want to give me crap.
P.S. What are your thoughts on governments requiring people to attend 12-step programs -- specifically, no alternatives -- or face further punishment?
Then last night I watched an episode of Penn & Teller: BS! where their sole topic of alleged BS was AA. At first I was surprised; I thought AA was a good thing. But in the course of the episode they raised some interesting points.
Firstly, a number of the steps require you to believe in a higher power of some kind. Even if you consider that open enough for a majority of religious beliefs, they pointed out how this was very problematic for Atheists, and how the official AA headquarters is in the "Interchurch Building" and their offices are covered in things containing scripture and little poems about God.
Okay, religious, but still a positive thing, right? Maybe not. Penn pointed out how the 12 steps require you to consider yourself powerless, worthless, less than nothing, before you can possibly get better. You don't put any faith in yourself, you put faith in someone else. If you read the 12 steps again, he's dead on. It very much gives the impression that you, the addict, are a worthless piece of crap.
The thing I found most interesting -- and potentially disturbing -- were the published statistics on how many people AA reforms in a year. Specifically, there are none. (At least, that's what P & T claim, though I doubt they made this up) Furthermore they presented an internal report from 1989 they managed to get (Penn said, "seriously, it was the only thing we could get") that said that the number of drunks reformed was steadily declining, roughly 50% of the people who showed up for the first time were not going to meetings three months later, and how the estimated percentage of successes as it stood when the report was done was roughly 5%. "And what's the percentage of Acoholics who kick the habit on their own with no help? 5%," said Penn.
Now in general I trust Penn & Teller. (Unless Penn says, "don't worry, this trick isn't scary.") But these are some pretty serious claims. I'm wondering if anybody can back up or refute what they've claimed with linkable or able-to-be-found-in-a-library proof. I'd also like to hear some input from any 12-steppers, reformed alcoholics/addicts who didn't use 12-step, or anybody who knows such people. Or if you just want to give me crap.
P.S. What are your thoughts on governments requiring people to attend 12-step programs -- specifically, no alternatives -- or face further punishment?
Facebook
Twitter