The point is, how many of us techies suffer from similar problems? After all, many alcoholics started excessive drinking due to stress - and I'd say the startup world is filled with people under loads of stress.
80-hour weeks are going to take a cut of your soul and I wonder sometimes how many of us are trying to replace said cut with alcohol or other drugs.
weird that she just flat breaks AA tradition 11 "we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.”
The reason this is so important is that should this woman have a "slip" - which LOTS of alcoholics do - now the world, and needy alcoholics, have one more reason to dismiss AA.
Try it before you judge it.
AA finds u when u need it, not to be traded for a drunkalog to generate page views.
> The reason this is so important is that should this woman have a "slip" - which LOTS of alcoholics do - now the world, and needy alcoholics, have one more reason to dismiss AA.
> Try it before you judge it.
An organization that tries to inflate its own public success rate, and then asks people to keep an open mind towards it rather than dismiss it. Ok.
We've had this discussion ad nauseam on other addiction threads here. The TL;DR of the literature is that in the short term, most methods have the same "success rate", where success here is defined as successfully achieving abstinence from the problem substance.
Participation in AA or other support groups (eg. SMART/Rational Recovery) is associated with substantially increased rates of continuous abstinence at the 1, 3 and 5 year marks after quitting, although there may be some self-selection bias going on there (participation rates being higher among the more motivated and so on).
> Participation in AA is associated with substantially increased rates of continuous abstinence at the 1, 3 and 5 year marks after quitting
It's been shown, as much as is possible, that that's all selection bias. People rarely fall off the wagon and then keep going to meetings.
AA's rules around anonymity and consent make it conveniently impossible to run good studies, so they are able to (rightly, for the most part) write off any study that runs against them, but are also unable to show any positive findings that don't fall prey to very obvious problems.
Your "quote" is not what I wrote, I include other support groups in my statement. I have no interest in arguing with obvious axe-grinding.
> People rarely fall off the wagon and then keep going to meetings.
I have a significant number of acquaintances who did exactly that, myself included, but I am not going to make the claim that my personal experience means anything statistically.
> It's been shown, as much as is possible, that that's all selection bias.
If that is the case, feel free to provide some sort of citation to back up your claim.
I have no axe to grind, other than a disdain for supporting emotional ties with poor statistics. I've never brushed with AA or alcoholism in any capacity. That said:
In Project MATCH [1] we learn that "twelve-step" (AA), cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational enhancement therapy all have very similar results across a large number of measures.
We also find that CBT performs equivalently to "brief opportunistic intervention" (which goes under a variety of names, but takes a single 5-minute meeting), which is the minimum amount of treatment that we're ethically allowed to give alcoholics.
So it may work better than nothing (can't really study that), but there are much lower-touch methods that give equivalent results.
So which is it - is it a treatment with no benefits other than that which is attributable to selection bias, as you first claimed, or is it a high-touch treatment that performs similarly to CBT or other forms of therapy? You're moving the goalposts. The latter statement is perfectly valid, as AA is really just CBT dressed up with additional social support and a charitable aspect.
Why the focus on high-touch/low-touch? It doesn't cost anyone anything except for those who attend, and even those who do aren't obligated to spend anything. It does take up some time, but it is time that I enjoy spending.
I have undergone both CBT and yes, have attended AA. The former did not do much for me, the latter did. AA as practiced in my area is strongly remniscent of CBT, only with additional social support, which is helpful for recovering alcoholics who have likely either alienated most people or who have built social networks focused around substance abuse.
If you were to say that addiction is complicated and the right course of treatment is difficult to determine and efficacy is hard to measure, I certainly would agree.
> So which is it - is it a treatment with no benefits other than that which is attributable to selection bias, as you first claimed, or is it a high-touch treatment that performs similarly to CBT or other forms of therapy?
It is a high-touch treatment that performs as well as a 5 minute intervention, despite constant claims that it is better. In the post I originally replied to, you implied that you were comparing it to other methods rather than nothing, although it wasn't terribly clear.
> It doesn't cost anyone anything except for those who attend
The oft-claimed improvement of AA over other methods messes up our views on addiction, as well as the justice system for addicts. Our refusal to use drugs to fight addiction even though the science is quite clear stems from full-abstinence organizations, largely led by AA.
I'm not sure why you are so vehement in attacking AA. Members (such as myself) who have access to other forms of treatment (medication, therapy, and sober housing) use them. What AA gives me is a powerful source of support. Let me offer a recent example:
A couple of days ago, I stepped off my back porch wrong and broke my ankle pretty badly. I was in a lot of pain, and I definitely needed to go to the hospital. A part of me was actually quite excited at the possibility of obtaining a "legitimate" supply of opiate painkillers. Luckily, I called a friend from AA and took his much more reasonable advice not to take the chance. Once I'd made that decision I realized that I'd been greatly exaggerating the pain to myself, and that it was nothing OTC painkillers couldn't handle.
Scary stuff, right? I had come up with a way to convince myself that it'd be ok to take score some drugs, which could very easily have sent me off into a relapse. It's when things like that happen that you need to listen to a "higher power": someone who isn't having your crazy addict thoughts and can assess your behavior rationally and objectively.
Since I'm laid up, AA people have been helping me get groceries, rides to meetings, and just stopping by to say hi. I can't really see a recovery professional doing that.
His understanding of the reasoning behind Tradition 11 is flawed. It has nothing to do with protecting the image AA from member relapses.
It has to do with encouraging humility among its members, who are alcoholics and who generally tend to have issues with being self-centered. This is true of a lot of the traditions - "leaders are trusted servants, they don't govern" and so on. Basically trying to keep addicts from getting an inflated sense of their own importance.
I have found that lots of aa members have a casual understanding of the traditions of aa. They attend meetings, and share about personal feelings but have little desire to learn and live by the traditions that were created out of hard lessons.
The particular tradition you refer to (appropriately) is about protecting AA from the ego's of its members and protecting members from arrogance which everyone know 'precedes a fall'.
Another misunderstanding of this tradition has to do with confusion with confidentiality. It was never intended for members to be secret from each other. This tradition is at the level of press, radio and films. Some people have tried to say that anonymity is at the level of members with each other, and that members should hide their full name from each other. In my opinion (which could be wrong) this is due to the influence of treatment centers in the 80's and 90's on the established program of AA.
Regardless, I find that careful anonymous sharing about the program of AA online is ok as long as you don't identify yourself as an AA member or use your full name and picture. Or if you do use your full name and picture, you shouldn't admit membership in AA.
I do not care to comment on my personal affiliation :)
> protecting members from arrogance which everyone know 'precedes a fall'
I feel like nothing can _really_ protect you from members' arrogance if they were determined enough. The rule, in my mind, only creates a certain exclusiveness shrouded in secrecy, which as far dealing with alcoholism seems pretty pointless. If it really works then why not spread the word?
Note the total lack of self-blame, or taking responsibility for one's own problems. Even the title, "No One to Rescue Me from My Drinking", puts the blame on someone, anyone, else.
I could never be an alcoholic, alcohol does nothing for me except dulling the senses. But there were kids I knew, from the first drink of their lives, it made them a different, less stressed, happier person. It was like heroin (I imagine, never tried it). Point is, some people genetically have an alcohol problem. And this person is writing about it, exposing themself to potential criticism like this, and taking action about it. Does judging this person make you feel like a better person? Because it's not helpful in any way. If you've avoided problems, good for you. If you haven't, and you've had struggles, it doesn't make you a hero, and it doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human being.
>>I could never be an alcoholic, alcohol does nothing for me except dulling the senses.
I think one of the common(if not primary) ways people become alcholics is when their senses keep delivering overwhelmingly negative signals and they want it to just stop.
When you feel that your life is awful in every way imaginable and you just don't want to feel anything anymore...
Interesting to hear that. The first time I ever had unrestricted access to alcohol was a revelation - like I'd suddenly found the cure for everything that ailed me. I lost count at something like 26 standard drinks.
Fast forward about two decades and surprise, I'm an alcoholic!
> kids I knew, from the first drink of their lives, it made them a different, less stressed, happier person.
> Point is, some people genetically have an alcohol problem.
Can you explain how you got from point A to point B above? I don't understand how your observation implies dependency, addiction, or any of the numerous problems that alcoholism causes in someone's life.
It is also true that some people have inherited traits that interfere with processing alcohol. But I don't understand how you can conclude that someone has such a trait from observing their behavior when drinking, nor how you conclude that such a person is an alcoholic. In fact, perhaps the most common genetic quirk (it's not really a defect) is a missing encoding for alcohol dehydrogenase, which according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction) is correlated with lower rates of alcoholism. Of course, others exist also.
Not really interested in the emotional reactions here on either side. Just interested in why/how you conclude that these three things are strongly correlated/causal.
What are you arguing exactly... no one has an exceptional reaction to drinking that suggests a possible future problem, so I couldn't have seen one? alcohol has the same effect on everyone? no one gets addicted? alcoholism doesn't have a genetic component?
I observe someone undergoes a huge personality change after drinking and seems a lot happier. I get a sense that this person might have difficulty consuming in moderation.
It seems consistent with a physiological or genetic basis. Not trying to win a prize in genetics or logic, just to use common sense to understand the human behavior I'm seeing.
I guess it's also possible something our mothers did while pregnant made the difference. I believe Occam's Razor and the body of evidence point to a genetic basis. What do you think the evidence points to?
> As a lot of drunks report, introducing alcohol into my body just felt like "Ooh, there we go. Here I am." Sort of like it elegantly completed a chemical equation of some kind.
I can't relate to that at all...alcohol has no interesting effect on me. There's a science in studying genes and chemistry, and a sort of science in just observing people and life and storing things and noticing patterns and developing hypotheses.
Except for when she checked herself in to AA, and then publicly wrote a piece calling herself a drunk, and admitting she'd let a disordered relationship to booze screw up her life for years.
That's the first thing that struck me too. Total abdication of personal responsibility, and her self-important, solipsistic attitude is found all throughout her writing.
Self-important... as if the writing's subject were... herself!? "Personal responsibility" is just an excuse for you to refuse to feel empathy for a person making herself vulnerable in a personal account. Your mean-spirited contempt is not as sophisticated as you think it is.
At first glance, I interpreted it the way you did -- "nobody is here to help me solve my problems"
But now, thinking about the story, I think maybe she meant it more as "No One [but me] to Rescue Me from My Drinking", because certainly she's taken control of her own life, and that's commendable.
Oh come off it. We're a social species and we depend on others immensely for our well-being. Different people have different needs but not one of us goes it alone. "Personal responsibility" is a massive joke in a society where everything one does is connected to dozens to millions of people and we depend on huge organizations of human industry for our necessities. I see no merit to your contempt.
That was the entire point of the story. That the way to fix your personal problems is to take responsibility for your own life. It takes you deciding that you are going to change who you are.
There was no one to rescue her because you can't be rescued from yourself.
"But this is how I am" sound like the words of a self-aware person to me. I don't have addiction issues, but it's hard to come to the place where one is able to say that about oneself, and that should be recognized.
I will admit, though, I assumed it was a woman just from the male romantic interest, which is my bad.
What? There's something to be said for not being hostile to those with different proclivities, however, there is certainly no reason to apologize for assuming something that is true in the vast majority of cases.
It's also not at all unlikely that you would consciously or unconsciously pick up on things in writing that would allow you to make a better than random guess about the sex of the author.
It sounds like he was an enabler to me, and that she would have done better off without him if he'd cut off contact with her at any point, even after she started AA.
I was thinking the same thing. It seems people are more forgiving of a woman's transgressions. For example, the bar manager who put her in a cab after four Manhattans. I'm trying to imagine a bar manager walking a drunk man out and putting him in a cab... unless this type of thing is common in New York?
I can remember the bar staff in Washington calling a cab for a guy, then noting down the taxi number as it drove off. They did this not once but regularly for this guy, a man in his 50s or early 60s. He was not staggering or sloppy drunk, but the bar staff, which dealt all the time with drinkers, thought this wisest.
Having done some work in my (relative) youth in situations where people got drunk sometimes, for me it was about self-protection. Some drunk people, when you try to help them out, get aggressive. Even if they don't get outright violent, that they threaten is just not pleasant.
So I would tend to be reluctant to help people that were above a certain size or physicality. Smaller people were much less of a threat, and I was exposing myself to less danger by helping them. Women, with their tendency on average to be both shorter, lighter and having a smaller proportion of muscle, happened to be below this "physical threat" threshold far more often than men.
Some regulars I'd see intoxicated enough to know that they weren't the violent drunk type and they'd often get a helping hand, even if they were twice my size. Conversely, some small people I knew were the violent drunk type and I didn't get involved.
I haven't read the book the above article is covering but it seems Dodes argues psychotherapy is a better alternative as 'addiction' is usually just a manifestation of self-destructive/self medication behavior ultimately due to untreated psychological issues. In this OP's case this is looks like depression.
The underlying philosophy of AA is often ignored by the general public and involves an ego death the likes of which have very few equals. You are indoctrinated to the fact that not only do you have a "disease," or problem, but you are also a weak human being for having succumbed to such disease in the first place.
Fortunately most people don't take the entire philosophy of the group to heart - if they did, I couldn't imagine the psychological toll it would create on an attendee.
but you are also a weak human being for having succumbed to such disease in the first place.
That's pretty much the antithesis of the AA philosophy, as well as the exact opposite of the "alcoholism is a disease" thinking. IOW, no one thinks you got cancer because you're a "weak human being". If there's any "ego death" involved, it's that you're not going to solve this in your own.
Source: attended my share of AA meetings and even read the book.
trashing those who you don't agree with isn't a fair justification to downvote.
My point is proven in the _first_ and _third_ steps of the program, In the admission that you have a problem, and that you are helpless to solve the problem yourself, respectively. [0][1]
What about your point? Your personal opinion of it? It is the admission that you are _helpless_ to your disease, and it is that very reason you don't have the self efficacy to overcome your issues yourself.
An ego death involves, in albeit, sometimes flawed Jungian psychology a loss of identity, and A transformation of ones psyche in such a way that the Self is not perceived the same way after such transformation.[2]
MY argument is that AA involves such ego death in that your admission over having a lack of self-efficacy in solving your own alcoholism is transformative, and you can't do it without the group or other external help, a la Step 3.
I am a different person than you. I find my inability to solve problems for myself _weakness_.
And just because you disagree, instead of positing an argument against my thoughts, you downvote my comment and claim you "read the book."
This was the same exact fashion of discourse that had me leave AA in the first place. I handled "alcoholism" differently. My life is a legal nightmare but alcohol isn't a personal issue.
In sum: People read things differently. But you don't see my flagging your comments because I disagree.
Man, were you not so pissy over imaginary internet points I might engage and show where you might have misinterpreted. However, I get the impression that engagement isn't what you're looking for, just agreement or silence. Regardless, I wish you well with your recovery, or whatever you wish to call it.
I don't think that's true at all. I think the idea of "let go and let god" is about realizing you are not in control, and accepting that (accepting the things you cannot change). This idea is found in many religions and philosophies and connotes life rather than death.
This article attacks a straw man AA. I could go on, but suffice to say, if what you know about recovery consists entirely of this article, you don't know much.
This article attacks a straw man AA. I could go on, but suffice to say, if what you know about recovery consists entirely of this article, you don't know much.
This article attacks a straw man AA. I could go on, but suffice to say, if what you know about recovery consists entirely of this article, you don't know much.
I haven't read the book the above article is covering but it seems Dodes argues psychotherapy is a better alternative as 'addiction' is usually just a manifestation of self-destructive/self medication behavior ultimately due to untreated psychological issues. In this OP's case this is looks like it was depression - though it's unclear if she is seeking treatment outside of AA.
I clearly have some kind of vice related to caffeine...
In the hardest periods of my life I managed to guzzle 6 liters of coca-cola every day, plus eating lots of chocolate, and drinking lots of coffee and tea, of course this also ruined my overall health.
I recently managed to "get clean", but I also stopped working, then I gave up, decided to buy 1 liter of red-bull style energy drink (not redbull itself because I can't afford it), drink it all in one go...
then I could work, and I felt MUCH better... but I am also drinking lots of coca-cola and eating lots of chocolate again.
I am seeing a psychiatrist, and seemly I have ADHD, and caffeine (and other stimulants) are a common way to self-medicate, and many ADHD sufferers, specially those not on legal meds, end having some strong vices (not only stopping at caffeine... cocaine, meth, and other strongly stimulant drugs abuse is also common).
I started taking Ritalin (Adderall is illegal here) this week, for now only half a pill per day, because my psychiatrist is inexperienced and probably wants to be safe, let's see if with it (and an increased dosage later) I will be able to stop abusing caffeine, my kidneys (that had stones) and my liver (that is covered in fat to the point of failing to work properly) will thank me. (I am also going to a psychologist...)
A liter of redbull subsitute? You sound like an addict just since you're talking quantities of caffeine.
I hope you get past this. it's especially difficult because a lot of people don't realize caffene is a drug. Like watching a couple who drink three bottles of wine a day talk down on someone for drinking a liter of spirits as an alcoholic.
> You sound like an addict just since you're talking quantities of caffeine.
I might have misunderstood what you were trying to say. If I did, I apologise in advance:
Because I get a day-long headache whenever I don't drink a caffeinated beverage for a day or so, I know that I'm a caffeine addict.
Speaking about volumes of ingestible substances with somewhat-known properties to provide a general idea of how much of a thing one is ingesting doesn't mean that one is an addict; it means that one is interested in attempting to convey information somewhat precisely. If you don't specify things in known quantities, you're left with vague and imprecise descriptors like "some", "not much", and "a lot".
How about flipping it? You need the ADHD to function maximally in your life/career, so you're unconsciously self medicating to induce it through caffeine?
I am struggling to barely work, I keep getting repeteadly fired even when my performance is good (because my behaviour is too strange in the office), I lost a girlfriend due to ADHD (I have to constantly fidget or move, this girlfriend tought I was anxious and didn't wanted to pay attention to her when I was fidgeting when she was talking to me).
Also caffeine don't induce ADHD (the medical condition).
Caffeine doesn't induce ADHD in the general population. Individual cases are possible, or more commonly, ADHD type behaviours caused by external stimuli. Actual genetic ADHD is extremely rare and severely debilitating when it does occur.
It is possible to cause ADHD symptoms with caffeine. And I didn't say you want to have any condition. I am implying you do not understand the possible causes of it and have taken the easy option to bandaid.
Stimulants are my vice, too, and for the same reason (took me awhile to realize the reason in my case too).
Unsolicited advice: I recommend taking days off your stimulant meds where feasible (e.g. weekends), as tolerance can build quickly and you can end up feeling like you need both your prescribed medication and whatever you were using to self-medicate prior to being diagnosed in order to feel "right" and able to focus. That, and my experience has been that, when I'm taking my meds regularly, I feel as dumb/unable to focus when they wear off as I feel calmed down/finally able to concentrate when they're in effect.
This is just a suggestion but have you tried running? I'm also a caffeine /addict/ and running is my substitute of choice. Exercise is a huge stimulant (endorphins)
I also have thyroid disease, one of the symptoms is that bones and muscles are weaker, and that losing lean mass is very easy, I tried running before, but it weakens me (literally, I lose muscle), also it hurts a lot (I feel a burning sensation in my leg bones when I run long distances, or when I run several days in a row).
The only exercises I do that actually help my health is weight lifting with low reps (with high reps I also start to lose muscle).
Just a suggestion, but if you ended up with a caffeine problem, you're very likely to end up with a Ritalin problem. I don't know exactly what the laws are like where you live, but running out of Ritalin is a much harder problem to solve than running out of coffee.
Why not? HN discusses all sorts of treatments all the time that none of us have tried. Making Alcoholics Anonymous unimpeachable smacks of religiousity.
Interestingly, one of the founders of AA thought that LSD could be a tremendous help for curing alcoholism:
Wilson hoped LSD would help those addicted to alcohol. He realized that A.A. simply did not work for every motivated alcoholic. According to Wilson, “It is a generally acknowledged fact in spiritual development that ego reduction makes the influx of God’s grace possible. If, therefore, under LSD we can have a temporary reduction, so that we can better see what we are and where we are going–well, that might be of some help.”
I don't know how effective Alcoholics Anonymous really is (not saying one way or the other), but having the accountability placed on you by friends is a helpful thing in many other tough situations in life. You can see it underlying many useful bits of advice ("Have a cofounder" always comes to mind -- someone to motivate you when you're unable to do so yourself, perhaps?)
Addiction is no joke and anything that can provide relief or help to those who have found themselves caught up in it would be a huge thing. I always think back to a former friend of mine who battled with opiates. She lost her family and children -- well after she had completed a recovery program and been sober for a year. When she started with pills there was a very good reason -- several surgeries and a lot of pain management. When the pain was well and gone, she was left with a strong addiction. The woman she was before she started popping pills regularly and the woman she is now (completely sober) are different people. She told me that long term opiate addiction changes your brain chemistry in such a way that depression becomes a way of life -- I'm not sure if that's true, but it looks like it is with her. The worst part is that her marriage problems started well after she had cleaned up. Her husband, still a friend, said he couldn't stand the woman she'd become and confessed to me that he sometimes wished she'd never stopped. Before the judgement starts, he's a solid guy and I stand by his decision to fight for full custody of his children (you'd have to understand the whole story which I can't do justice to here).
Her description of addiction still haunts me, though. She said "you need it like you need food after having not eaten for a week". She's done a week long fast (as have I). She'd know. That description is the only thing I've heard that adequately explains why addicts will put their children in harms way if it means getting their next fix (ever wonder why cigarette prices can go up 600% in two years and people still smoke?). I watched her become completely broke buying pills from scary people in scary places. I've heard from others some of the things she was willing to do to get enough pills to get her through a day; it's way beyond what you already couldn't imagine a suburban mother of 4 doing.
Alcoholism isn't so much about addiction as it is about binge drinking. Lots of people have a couple of drinks everyday and function quite well. It's the four manhattans in quick succession where things go awry.
Alcoholism is when alcohol drinking interferes whit your life, every alcoholic likes to think he's not one and deceives himself into thinking he can stop anytime: " is just a couple of drinks, is not like I binge drink every day..."
No it is not. Binge drinking is completely different (and harmless compared to alcoholism phenomenon). You usually grow out of binge drinking by your 18-19th birthday.
> You usually grow out of binge drinking by your 18-19th birthday.
Except when you don't, as was the case with some adults that I spent a large chunk of my life with. Binge drinking is a different kind of alcoholism, but it is still alcoholism.
As a recovering alcoholic, I can confidently say that this is not correct. Although many alcoholics get in trouble by drinking too much too fast (this seems like an acceptable definition of binge drinking that takes tolerance into account), the key feature of alcoholism is addiction -- that in the face of the consequences, alcoholics do not stop. At the height of my drinking, I was going through about two liters of vodka a day. Despite this, I tried and usually succeeded not to lose control of my behavior. After all, getting in trouble jeopardizes your ability to get drunk, and as an addict, every action I took and decision I made was driven by a simple principle: don't let anything come between me and booze.
A couple of drinks could be harmful drinking, but it is nowhere near alcoholism.
To get a medically supervised withdrawal in England you need to be drinking 40 units a day - that's a litre of 40% spirits every day. (That number drops if you have severe and enduring mental illness, or are female).
Binge drinking - having most of the week alcohol free and ten having a bunch of drinks over a few days is associated with increased risk of sexual violence; unplanned pregnancy; STDs; accidental injury; etc, and the the alcohol harms on top. But uaving those drink free days is somewhat protective.
Drinking a couple of drinks everyday makes the alcohol harms much more likely, and reduces the other risks. (It depends how big those drinks are.)
I'll admit it, I love drugs. Uppers, downers, I love them all. But I TRULY do not understand addiction. I just don't, and I've tried plenty of soft and hard drugs.
I'm not sure what I want to say but perhaps just that it's important to realize that your or mine experience is not at all the same as others.
In the recovery community we call this state of being "dry", as in "dry drunk". The concept is that while she's managed to stop taking the pills, she hasn't addressed the underlying problems. It's especially likely when someone is getting clean in order to accomplish something (getting one's kids back, for example) other than freeing themselves from addiction.
If you've got the bug, that book is not going to help you. It'll just tell you how screwed you are. If you don't have the bug, I think that book might help you understand the problem.
* Plato's Republic. It's not meant to be read alone, I think. Read it with a like minded group of folks a book at a time. Our discussions of this work still inform how I think of all the ways people form groups together, in more or less ideal forms.
* The Master And His Emissary. This book opened up the ancient worldview to me, and also gave me a strong rap on the head that "figuring things out" might not be the best way to navigate through life.
Ah, this rang so many bells. My ex of ten years ago drank huge amounts and was in utter denial about there even being a possibility of a problem. I used to have to go out and find her, usually asleep in an alley, or passed out in a bar's toilets - the worst occasion was when she threw a brick at me, as I had come to pry her away from a bar, and the recoil sent her tumbling into the Thames, in December - fished her out - and the next morning she was convinced I had pushed her in. Stabbed me with a stiletto heel a few months later, because I was trying to stop her hurling our furniture from a fifth story window.
Ultimately we broke up as it's remarkably easy to bamboozle a drunk into admitting that yes, they have cheated on you dozens of times with dozens of men.
This woman is a high court judge now. As far as I can tell, most barristers and judges are full blown alcoholics. For some reason I loved her - probably in the same way as I love my three legged cat - broken, piteous things, both.
I suppose the point of where I'm going is that the only person who can rescue you is yourself. I tried for far too long for both of our sakes.
Man, what a chapter of your life. I've had something similar, and it's amazing to what extreme trials and tribulations you'll go through with someone during a relationship. I like to think we learn a lot from these experiences, so maybe the three legged cats are there for a reason.
It was heartbreaking - both because she betrayed me, but moreso because I realised that I was no small part of what was making her worse - she was dashing herself to pieces between the guilt she felt over her trespasses and the righteous indignation she felt at me trying to help her...
I've not spoken with her in a decade, I hope she's at least found a way of living with her demons - but as I said, drinking is a huge part of the legal professional culture, so as long as she's inured in that world, I don't know what hope there is.
Either way, it's her life. I guess the main thing I learned is that kindness can kill, be careful how you apply it.
This article to me is about depression not alcohol addiction as the author points out -
> The absence of alcohol revealed that my “dark soul” was the manifestation of a decades-long depression. Booze had masked its diagnosis while also egging it on.
They to me are more talking about binge drinking.
I'm not sure an addict can just go to one AA meeting and stop. Sure it's possible, but to me they didn't sound like an addict, more self destructive.
100 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 202 ms ] thread80-hour weeks are going to take a cut of your soul and I wonder sometimes how many of us are trying to replace said cut with alcohol or other drugs.
Or in this case; not drink.
I agree with meesles sentiment.
The reason this is so important is that should this woman have a "slip" - which LOTS of alcoholics do - now the world, and needy alcoholics, have one more reason to dismiss AA.
Try it before you judge it.
AA finds u when u need it, not to be traded for a drunkalog to generate page views.
> Try it before you judge it.
An organization that tries to inflate its own public success rate, and then asks people to keep an open mind towards it rather than dismiss it. Ok.
Jeez these AA PR snippets are just stellar.
Participation in AA or other support groups (eg. SMART/Rational Recovery) is associated with substantially increased rates of continuous abstinence at the 1, 3 and 5 year marks after quitting, although there may be some self-selection bias going on there (participation rates being higher among the more motivated and so on).
It's been shown, as much as is possible, that that's all selection bias. People rarely fall off the wagon and then keep going to meetings.
AA's rules around anonymity and consent make it conveniently impossible to run good studies, so they are able to (rightly, for the most part) write off any study that runs against them, but are also unable to show any positive findings that don't fall prey to very obvious problems.
> People rarely fall off the wagon and then keep going to meetings.
I have a significant number of acquaintances who did exactly that, myself included, but I am not going to make the claim that my personal experience means anything statistically.
> It's been shown, as much as is possible, that that's all selection bias.
If that is the case, feel free to provide some sort of citation to back up your claim.
In Project MATCH [1] we learn that "twelve-step" (AA), cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational enhancement therapy all have very similar results across a large number of measures.
We also find that CBT performs equivalently to "brief opportunistic intervention" (which goes under a variety of names, but takes a single 5-minute meeting), which is the minimum amount of treatment that we're ethically allowed to give alcoholics.
So it may work better than nothing (can't really study that), but there are much lower-touch methods that give equivalent results.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MATCH
[2] http://robinsteed.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/52176344/Treatmen..., study by "Chick et al. (1988)"
Why the focus on high-touch/low-touch? It doesn't cost anyone anything except for those who attend, and even those who do aren't obligated to spend anything. It does take up some time, but it is time that I enjoy spending.
I have undergone both CBT and yes, have attended AA. The former did not do much for me, the latter did. AA as practiced in my area is strongly remniscent of CBT, only with additional social support, which is helpful for recovering alcoholics who have likely either alienated most people or who have built social networks focused around substance abuse.
If you were to say that addiction is complicated and the right course of treatment is difficult to determine and efficacy is hard to measure, I certainly would agree.
It is a high-touch treatment that performs as well as a 5 minute intervention, despite constant claims that it is better. In the post I originally replied to, you implied that you were comparing it to other methods rather than nothing, although it wasn't terribly clear.
> It doesn't cost anyone anything except for those who attend
The oft-claimed improvement of AA over other methods messes up our views on addiction, as well as the justice system for addicts. Our refusal to use drugs to fight addiction even though the science is quite clear stems from full-abstinence organizations, largely led by AA.
A couple of days ago, I stepped off my back porch wrong and broke my ankle pretty badly. I was in a lot of pain, and I definitely needed to go to the hospital. A part of me was actually quite excited at the possibility of obtaining a "legitimate" supply of opiate painkillers. Luckily, I called a friend from AA and took his much more reasonable advice not to take the chance. Once I'd made that decision I realized that I'd been greatly exaggerating the pain to myself, and that it was nothing OTC painkillers couldn't handle.
Scary stuff, right? I had come up with a way to convince myself that it'd be ok to take score some drugs, which could very easily have sent me off into a relapse. It's when things like that happen that you need to listen to a "higher power": someone who isn't having your crazy addict thoughts and can assess your behavior rationally and objectively.
Since I'm laid up, AA people have been helping me get groceries, rides to meetings, and just stopping by to say hi. I can't really see a recovery professional doing that.
It has to do with encouraging humility among its members, who are alcoholics and who generally tend to have issues with being self-centered. This is true of a lot of the traditions - "leaders are trusted servants, they don't govern" and so on. Basically trying to keep addicts from getting an inflated sense of their own importance.
The particular tradition you refer to (appropriately) is about protecting AA from the ego's of its members and protecting members from arrogance which everyone know 'precedes a fall'.
Another misunderstanding of this tradition has to do with confusion with confidentiality. It was never intended for members to be secret from each other. This tradition is at the level of press, radio and films. Some people have tried to say that anonymity is at the level of members with each other, and that members should hide their full name from each other. In my opinion (which could be wrong) this is due to the influence of treatment centers in the 80's and 90's on the established program of AA.
Regardless, I find that careful anonymous sharing about the program of AA online is ok as long as you don't identify yourself as an AA member or use your full name and picture. Or if you do use your full name and picture, you shouldn't admit membership in AA.
I do not care to comment on my personal affiliation :)
I feel like nothing can _really_ protect you from members' arrogance if they were determined enough. The rule, in my mind, only creates a certain exclusiveness shrouded in secrecy, which as far dealing with alcoholism seems pretty pointless. If it really works then why not spread the word?
I think one of the common(if not primary) ways people become alcholics is when their senses keep delivering overwhelmingly negative signals and they want it to just stop.
When you feel that your life is awful in every way imaginable and you just don't want to feel anything anymore...
Fast forward about two decades and surprise, I'm an alcoholic!
> Point is, some people genetically have an alcohol problem.
Can you explain how you got from point A to point B above? I don't understand how your observation implies dependency, addiction, or any of the numerous problems that alcoholism causes in someone's life.
It is also true that some people have inherited traits that interfere with processing alcohol. But I don't understand how you can conclude that someone has such a trait from observing their behavior when drinking, nor how you conclude that such a person is an alcoholic. In fact, perhaps the most common genetic quirk (it's not really a defect) is a missing encoding for alcohol dehydrogenase, which according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction) is correlated with lower rates of alcoholism. Of course, others exist also.
Not really interested in the emotional reactions here on either side. Just interested in why/how you conclude that these three things are strongly correlated/causal.
I observe someone undergoes a huge personality change after drinking and seems a lot happier. I get a sense that this person might have difficulty consuming in moderation.
It seems consistent with a physiological or genetic basis. Not trying to win a prize in genetics or logic, just to use common sense to understand the human behavior I'm seeing.
I guess it's also possible something our mothers did while pregnant made the difference. I believe Occam's Razor and the body of evidence point to a genetic basis. What do you think the evidence points to?
> As a lot of drunks report, introducing alcohol into my body just felt like "Ooh, there we go. Here I am." Sort of like it elegantly completed a chemical equation of some kind.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25749/rob-delaney-red-...
I can't relate to that at all...alcohol has no interesting effect on me. There's a science in studying genes and chemistry, and a sort of science in just observing people and life and storing things and noticing patterns and developing hypotheses.
Jesus. Empathy is dead here.
But now, thinking about the story, I think maybe she meant it more as "No One [but me] to Rescue Me from My Drinking", because certainly she's taken control of her own life, and that's commendable.
There was no one to rescue her because you can't be rescued from yourself.
much worse i'd imagine :/
what?
I read the article a couple of days ago, but I don't recall anything here being particularly gender-specific.
I will admit, though, I assumed it was a woman just from the male romantic interest, which is my bad.
What? There's something to be said for not being hostile to those with different proclivities, however, there is certainly no reason to apologize for assuming something that is true in the vast majority of cases.
It's also not at all unlikely that you would consciously or unconsciously pick up on things in writing that would allow you to make a better than random guess about the sex of the author.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0503/writing_styles.asp
http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php
no idea why... these kinds of first impressions are always hit and miss. it goes to show what terrible judges of character we all are. :)
It sounds like he was an enabler to me, and that she would have done better off without him if he'd cut off contact with her at any point, even after she started AA.
So I would tend to be reluctant to help people that were above a certain size or physicality. Smaller people were much less of a threat, and I was exposing myself to less danger by helping them. Women, with their tendency on average to be both shorter, lighter and having a smaller proportion of muscle, happened to be below this "physical threat" threshold far more often than men.
Some regulars I'd see intoxicated enough to know that they weren't the violent drunk type and they'd often get a helping hand, even if they were twice my size. Conversely, some small people I knew were the violent drunk type and I didn't get involved.
I haven't read the book the above article is covering but it seems Dodes argues psychotherapy is a better alternative as 'addiction' is usually just a manifestation of self-destructive/self medication behavior ultimately due to untreated psychological issues. In this OP's case this is looks like depression.
Fortunately most people don't take the entire philosophy of the group to heart - if they did, I couldn't imagine the psychological toll it would create on an attendee.
That's pretty much the antithesis of the AA philosophy, as well as the exact opposite of the "alcoholism is a disease" thinking. IOW, no one thinks you got cancer because you're a "weak human being". If there's any "ego death" involved, it's that you're not going to solve this in your own.
Source: attended my share of AA meetings and even read the book.
trashing those who you don't agree with isn't a fair justification to downvote.
My point is proven in the _first_ and _third_ steps of the program, In the admission that you have a problem, and that you are helpless to solve the problem yourself, respectively. [0][1]
What about your point? Your personal opinion of it? It is the admission that you are _helpless_ to your disease, and it is that very reason you don't have the self efficacy to overcome your issues yourself.
An ego death involves, in albeit, sometimes flawed Jungian psychology a loss of identity, and A transformation of ones psyche in such a way that the Self is not perceived the same way after such transformation.[2]
MY argument is that AA involves such ego death in that your admission over having a lack of self-efficacy in solving your own alcoholism is transformative, and you can't do it without the group or other external help, a la Step 3.
I am a different person than you. I find my inability to solve problems for myself _weakness_.
And just because you disagree, instead of positing an argument against my thoughts, you downvote my comment and claim you "read the book."
This was the same exact fashion of discourse that had me leave AA in the first place. I handled "alcoholism" differently. My life is a legal nightmare but alcohol isn't a personal issue.
In sum: People read things differently. But you don't see my flagging your comments because I disagree.
[0] a real source: http://www.alcoholic.org/research/aa-step-1/
[1] http://www.alcoholic.org/research/aa-step-3/
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death
my source: sentenced to AA, went to a few meetings, found it damaging, and worked out an alternative treatment plan with court.
I haven't read the book the above article is covering but it seems Dodes argues psychotherapy is a better alternative as 'addiction' is usually just a manifestation of self-destructive/self medication behavior ultimately due to untreated psychological issues. In this OP's case this is looks like it was depression - though it's unclear if she is seeking treatment outside of AA.
In the hardest periods of my life I managed to guzzle 6 liters of coca-cola every day, plus eating lots of chocolate, and drinking lots of coffee and tea, of course this also ruined my overall health.
I recently managed to "get clean", but I also stopped working, then I gave up, decided to buy 1 liter of red-bull style energy drink (not redbull itself because I can't afford it), drink it all in one go...
then I could work, and I felt MUCH better... but I am also drinking lots of coca-cola and eating lots of chocolate again.
I am seeing a psychiatrist, and seemly I have ADHD, and caffeine (and other stimulants) are a common way to self-medicate, and many ADHD sufferers, specially those not on legal meds, end having some strong vices (not only stopping at caffeine... cocaine, meth, and other strongly stimulant drugs abuse is also common).
I started taking Ritalin (Adderall is illegal here) this week, for now only half a pill per day, because my psychiatrist is inexperienced and probably wants to be safe, let's see if with it (and an increased dosage later) I will be able to stop abusing caffeine, my kidneys (that had stones) and my liver (that is covered in fat to the point of failing to work properly) will thank me. (I am also going to a psychologist...)
I hope you get past this. it's especially difficult because a lot of people don't realize caffene is a drug. Like watching a couple who drink three bottles of wine a day talk down on someone for drinking a liter of spirits as an alcoholic.
They're one and the same.
I might have misunderstood what you were trying to say. If I did, I apologise in advance:
Because I get a day-long headache whenever I don't drink a caffeinated beverage for a day or so, I know that I'm a caffeine addict.
Speaking about volumes of ingestible substances with somewhat-known properties to provide a general idea of how much of a thing one is ingesting doesn't mean that one is an addict; it means that one is interested in attempting to convey information somewhat precisely. If you don't specify things in known quantities, you're left with vague and imprecise descriptors like "some", "not much", and "a lot".
I am struggling to barely work, I keep getting repeteadly fired even when my performance is good (because my behaviour is too strange in the office), I lost a girlfriend due to ADHD (I have to constantly fidget or move, this girlfriend tought I was anxious and didn't wanted to pay attention to her when I was fidgeting when she was talking to me).
Also caffeine don't induce ADHD (the medical condition).
Unsolicited advice: I recommend taking days off your stimulant meds where feasible (e.g. weekends), as tolerance can build quickly and you can end up feeling like you need both your prescribed medication and whatever you were using to self-medicate prior to being diagnosed in order to feel "right" and able to focus. That, and my experience has been that, when I'm taking my meds regularly, I feel as dumb/unable to focus when they wear off as I feel calmed down/finally able to concentrate when they're in effect.
The only exercises I do that actually help my health is weight lifting with low reps (with high reps I also start to lose muscle).
Wilson hoped LSD would help those addicted to alcohol. He realized that A.A. simply did not work for every motivated alcoholic. According to Wilson, “It is a generally acknowledged fact in spiritual development that ego reduction makes the influx of God’s grace possible. If, therefore, under LSD we can have a temporary reduction, so that we can better see what we are and where we are going–well, that might be of some help.”
http://mywordlikefire.com/2012/10/28/lsd-researcher-and-a-a-... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/23/lsd-help-alco... http://www.maps.org/research-archive/w3pb/2005/2005_Dyck_228... http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17297714
Addiction is no joke and anything that can provide relief or help to those who have found themselves caught up in it would be a huge thing. I always think back to a former friend of mine who battled with opiates. She lost her family and children -- well after she had completed a recovery program and been sober for a year. When she started with pills there was a very good reason -- several surgeries and a lot of pain management. When the pain was well and gone, she was left with a strong addiction. The woman she was before she started popping pills regularly and the woman she is now (completely sober) are different people. She told me that long term opiate addiction changes your brain chemistry in such a way that depression becomes a way of life -- I'm not sure if that's true, but it looks like it is with her. The worst part is that her marriage problems started well after she had cleaned up. Her husband, still a friend, said he couldn't stand the woman she'd become and confessed to me that he sometimes wished she'd never stopped. Before the judgement starts, he's a solid guy and I stand by his decision to fight for full custody of his children (you'd have to understand the whole story which I can't do justice to here).
Her description of addiction still haunts me, though. She said "you need it like you need food after having not eaten for a week". She's done a week long fast (as have I). She'd know. That description is the only thing I've heard that adequately explains why addicts will put their children in harms way if it means getting their next fix (ever wonder why cigarette prices can go up 600% in two years and people still smoke?). I watched her become completely broke buying pills from scary people in scary places. I've heard from others some of the things she was willing to do to get enough pills to get her through a day; it's way beyond what you already couldn't imagine a suburban mother of 4 doing.
What happens if they can't get the drinks one day? Do they get agitated? Does it impair their lives in any way?
Except when you don't, as was the case with some adults that I spent a large chunk of my life with. Binge drinking is a different kind of alcoholism, but it is still alcoholism.
To get a medically supervised withdrawal in England you need to be drinking 40 units a day - that's a litre of 40% spirits every day. (That number drops if you have severe and enduring mental illness, or are female).
Binge drinking - having most of the week alcohol free and ten having a bunch of drinks over a few days is associated with increased risk of sexual violence; unplanned pregnancy; STDs; accidental injury; etc, and the the alcohol harms on top. But uaving those drink free days is somewhat protective.
Drinking a couple of drinks everyday makes the alcohol harms much more likely, and reduces the other risks. (It depends how big those drinks are.)
I'm not sure what I want to say but perhaps just that it's important to realize that your or mine experience is not at all the same as others.
If you've got the bug, that book is not going to help you. It'll just tell you how screwed you are. If you don't have the bug, I think that book might help you understand the problem.
* Plato's Republic. It's not meant to be read alone, I think. Read it with a like minded group of folks a book at a time. Our discussions of this work still inform how I think of all the ways people form groups together, in more or less ideal forms. * The Master And His Emissary. This book opened up the ancient worldview to me, and also gave me a strong rap on the head that "figuring things out" might not be the best way to navigate through life.
Ultimately we broke up as it's remarkably easy to bamboozle a drunk into admitting that yes, they have cheated on you dozens of times with dozens of men.
This woman is a high court judge now. As far as I can tell, most barristers and judges are full blown alcoholics. For some reason I loved her - probably in the same way as I love my three legged cat - broken, piteous things, both.
I suppose the point of where I'm going is that the only person who can rescue you is yourself. I tried for far too long for both of our sakes.
I've not spoken with her in a decade, I hope she's at least found a way of living with her demons - but as I said, drinking is a huge part of the legal professional culture, so as long as she's inured in that world, I don't know what hope there is.
Either way, it's her life. I guess the main thing I learned is that kindness can kill, be careful how you apply it.
> The absence of alcohol revealed that my “dark soul” was the manifestation of a decades-long depression. Booze had masked its diagnosis while also egging it on.
They to me are more talking about binge drinking.
I'm not sure an addict can just go to one AA meeting and stop. Sure it's possible, but to me they didn't sound like an addict, more self destructive.