Johnston

Not sure AA ever actually had the recovery rate stated in the BB. How many of the first hundred or so stayed sober their whole life? Would be interested to know that.

Not trying to be a naysayer but I'm skeptical when people harken back to a purified past that might not have existed. Just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true.

awuh1

Got to agree with Ladyblue 100% on this. Not everyone coming to AA has a low bottom like most of the early members of AA. Some may find the best approach for working with low bottom drunks is to give them little choice (a la Clarence Schneider). This is not what works best when bottoms are less deep in my experience.

To approach all newcomers without making this distinction misses the mark, and IMO hurts rates of recovery. I think there is a reason for the sentence, “Our book is meant to be suggestive only” in the concluding remarks on the last page.

freshstart57

Johnston, here is a quote from Lois Wilson's secretary who detailed his early experiences with The Wilsons, and Dr. Bob, in his biography of Bill W:

awuh1

Johnston, there is no recovery rate stated in the big book. The first public reference to a success rate (50% + 25%) was made by Bill W. 10 months after publication of the BB in his talk to the dinner guests at a Rockefeller dinner at the Union League Club in New York City.

Thanks Freshstart, for your contribution here. If Hartigans numbers are correct it would mean AA was doing better in 1940 with low bottom drunks than the modern medical community is doing right now with a full spectrum of alcoholics.

It’s always nice to see those who don’t utilize the program sing its praises.

Johnston

The forward to the second edition of the bb makes the 50%/25% claim.

Leadfoot

Something to bear in mind is that in the earlier days the doors weren't open for people to come and go at their leisure. The wheat was separated from the chaff. You were "Sponsored" into a group. The Sponsor took the prospect through the third step, discussed the prospect and his case with the wife, clergyman and his employer. He then discussed the prospect with the group to determine if the prospect was worth working with. If all agreed it was then that the prospect was allowed to join the group. He joined the group and AA on step four. This was required. You didn't get to sit idle on step two and a half for the duration. If for any reason a member of the group drank, he was out of the group. Today if you drink you're welcomed back in with thousands of hugs, well wishes and a bouquet of roses. Time and time again. The mentality of kicking someone out of the group is the oldest ploy in the book. The best way to get someone to want something is to try and take it away from them. They'll always put in a little extra effort to get it.

Johnston

So does the 50% claim include wheat only, whereas the chafe makes up the other 25%? My view is that any talk of percentages is useless if cherry picking is being done prior to success being determined. It's like saying I have a program that is very successful at making someone a good slam dunker, but then admitting that I only take on those who are 6'5" and over.

awuh1

Johnson. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1st edition because we were talking about the low bottom first 100 in AA.

Leadfoot, Where does this information about being “sponsored into” a group come from? I have heard people mention this before but I would like more information on how widespread this practice was. Thanks

DoubleBarrel

Recoveryism is a big business now.

It used to be socially acceptable for men to have martinis at a business lunch.

For the last 20 years, if you ordered a BEER at a lunch, people would look at you sideways.

Many people who used to drink to cope are now on prescription medications.

Lots and lots of high bottoms.

It is what it is.

The only stat that I am worried about is my own, and I am 100% successful today.

I'll worry about tomorrow when I get there.

caboblanco

Why would recovery rates be that much better 70 or 80 years ago using the exact same tactics? Just something to think about.

Johnston

Thanks for the clarification.

DoubleBarrel

Partly because they dragged people out of detox cells, institutions and skid row alleys.

Today AA has all kinds of people, from pregnant soccer moms to first offense DUI cases.

ProgressNotPerfection

I got sober in '84 and went to meetings religiously for the first ten years, then started to slack off on meetings - not on recovery, just meetings - all other aspects of my recovery network remained in place. I stayed sober. I had kids in 2003 and missed meetings for the next ten years. So really, the last fifteen years, I've not been an active member of AA but have remained clean and sober.

I say those things as background because in coming back to meetings last March, I was like (and still am) WTF happened here? We're is everyone? Where are the meetings? the after meeting conversations? The clubs where you can hang out all day? Where has my fellowship gone off to?

It isn't the same. And I'm not seeing anything replacing it either. It isn't as if things are better in society now than they were 15 or 20 years ago - It is as if the Bush administration really has screwed everything up!

Working the steps is still the most successful way to recover. I suppose some of this "virtual meeting stuff" has worth - I'm here now. It does. Doesn't take the place of on-the-ground meetings though.

Don't know what happened to AA but I really appreciate the O.P. - me sentiments exactly!

Johnston

@johnny, I think the internet and alternative therapies have been the biggest factors in AA's gradual decline. Western society is also becoming more secular overall, which does not bode well for a spiritual program. If you look at Europe you'll see that the fellowship has made nowhere near the inroads as in the US.

awuh1

Johnston, I have a somewhat different perspective.

Although society in general has become more secularized since before the end of the middle ages, the trend has reversed. I think that there has been a reaction against a purely mechanistic and materialistic world view. Phenomenon as diverse as AA and the ‘New Age’ movement are evidence of that.

One of the more interesting recent examples of this is a youtube video of a prominent quantum physicist in a conversation with the Dali Lama. Modern physics is taking a much closer look at what eastern spiritual movements are saying. Why? Because there is so much agreement between what recent experiments are finding and what those ancient spiritual movements have been saying for millennia. Kinda makes ya wonder where all that ancient wisdom came from. Modern western science is only very recently coming to many of the same realizations (and its not pointing towards a mechanistic and materialistic world view).

And we thought that we knew so much for so long, and that all this spiritual stuff was just sort of silly.

caboblanco

I'm pretty sure AA always had the same success rates which are very low

Leadfoot

"AA Comes of Age" between about pgs 18 and 25. Specifically starting at the bottom of Pg 20 before it breaks off into the practice of meeting in peoples homes. Hence the term "home group".

awuh1

I cannot locate my copy Leadfoot. I read it, I just don't recall it. Thanks for pointing it out.

awuh1

Leadfoot, I finally found my copy of AA Comes of Age.

There is only one sentence (on page 21) that refers to sponsors taking new prospects to meetings. This was only done in Cleveland, and only briefly (as far as I can tell) due to an explosion of growth in AA there due to a newspaper article in late 1939 .'

Nothing mentioned about prospects needing to do a 3rd step prior to attending a meeting, nor about discussions with wife, clergyman and employer. The section you site also does not refer to sponsors speaking with the group members and getting permission for attendance.

Though the brief mention of sponsors taking newcomers to meetings is interesting, I think it’s a bit unfair to characterize these events in early Cleveland as the norm for early AA in general. From what is sited, it was isolated to Cleveland and was only a brief practice that stemmed from the explosive growth of the program in that time frame.

DayTrader

I used to think that too. Over the past 6+ years though, what I've seen and what I've experienced pretty much mirrors what's in the AA book:
When the spiritual malady is overcome, we straighten out mentally and physically.

I've also experience (myself) a lot of (and see a lot of) lack of willingness to work the 12th step. Sometimes I just think I'm too darn busy to work with someone else.....or I'll work with someone else but not "that" guy......or I'm not ready yet. What is it that my life depends upon, if the book is to be believed? Oh yeah, my constant thought of others and how I may help meet THEIR needs. And when do I tend to get into the most trouble in my life? .......when I'm focused on MY needs (or what I THINK are my needs).

There's another line in the book that combines these two....and yup, my actual experience bears this one out too: "For if an alcoholic failed to perfect and enlarge his spiritual life through work and self-sacrifice for others, he could not survive the certain trials and low spots ahead."

As my friend Boleo posted earlier though......I've got all these other options though. I mean, I don't want to work with others for their benefit. I don't want to grow spiritually. I don't want to think about you, hell, I've got problems with ME that I want to think about and dwell on and fix. And certainly, I don't feel like doing any of that other stuff in that book. It's old and outdated. Things are different now......and what I FEEL LIKE doing is all I do, it's what I worship.....so I'll try something else......since there are so many "options" out there.