PiratePrentice

Then I will break my word and come back to say that we agree. I misspoke. I didn't mean to say it was unlimited in what it can do. I meant in the sense that it seemed you were saying it was limited in an extremely derogatory way. If that's not what you meant, I misspoke. Every treatment is limited. Both CBT and AA are limited. As is every other option out there. No treatment can promise to be a fix-all cure.

The OP was asking for alternatives that specifically didn't have religious tenets, and my answer to that would be CBT. Other correct answers would be similar approaches used in the secular community. They have been posted here, and while I'm not entirely familiar with all of them, I would point anyone to that board, who don't want either AA or CBT.

Nothing is guaranteed to work. But CBT is effective for those looking for a non-religious approach, and AA is effective for those who are either A) religious, or, B) don't care that much about it and want to get well. Both have limitations. The OP specifically wanted something without a religious element. Now that we agree, I will call it a night. Thanks for pushing back.

EndGameNYC

There ya go. I was having some fun with you, but I was also interested in knowing whether or not you endorsed the part that I've quoted from your comments.

My bias (and we all have them) is that we cannot know what "works" before we actually make an effort to try it. No one's gotten ahead in life, grew or progressed as an individual, by ruling out everything they couldn't or wouldn't do. No one wants to be in treatment for anything, and this is especially true when it comes to getting treatment for alcoholism. It's important to decide whether or not we decline certain types of treatment or support based on unwavering personal convictions, or based on something else, including a camouflaged desire to continue drinking.

Social settings are difficult for many people, especially when getting help requires that we acknowledge our addiction in public. More private methods work for many people, but they often don't carry the weight of face-to-face support. I know people who've used SR as their primary means of getting sober. All of them are good people who have a great deal to contribute. How does science explain that? Text interpretation as remedy? Gotta be more than that.

I do tend to get a little ornery when I get a sense that people are dismissive of different kinds of support and/or treatment because of some or another personal discomfort. Or, again, because of a personal bias. I hated the fact that I needed to go to AA when I first got sober in 1983, but I had no other viable choices. Since that time, I've added individual psychotherapy and a range of healthy activities and personal goals, not just to stay sober, but to live a better life.

I have very high standards for myself when I'm sober. Someone else might describe my standards as "exacting." No matter. I'm not content with just putting down the drink. If I'm not doing something to improve myself, other than for entertainment, joy, or pleasure (which, one could argue, are acts of self-improvement), then I need to challenge myself so as not to get stuck in the same place. And I generally do what I do very quietly.

I appreciate that, for some people, it's enough just not to pick up a drink. I don't carry any judgment around that, or hold any criticism for people who aren't interested in improving themselves. It's none of my business. But I have a difficult time in reconciling their apparent choice to stay still with my desire that they have more for themselves than they already do. That stuff is all mine.

LastDrinks

Hi EndGame, a bit off-topic, but I have been reading a lot on the Rat City expepriments for addiction and also the hosital-issued opiates backing these up recently, do you think there is any merit in these?

EndGameNYC

That's a very complicated question, followed by another very complicated question.

This article may provide some insight, and it at least partially aligns with some of my thinking on the subject:

Addiction: The View from Rat Park (2010)

I use existential thinking in my work as a psychotherapist, though a true existentialist would likely mock me for putting it that way. There has been, I believe, a yawning chasm when it comes to a sense of purpose and meaning in our lives, and it didn't just start with what was then called "Punk Rock."

I'll start with the obvious. Advances in technology have made many things in life, including such things as education and interpersonal relationships, much simpler to pursue and maintain, though I believe that many of our interpersonal transactions have become more superficial as a result. And I don't believe that we're fully aware of this, with claims of having "met my soulmate online," started a new business, learned a new skill and other such instances (which I believe are the exception) lending credibility to the notion that quicker and easier is better. What we don't know is whether or not these things would have happened without the use of the Internet. Things could have gone better, worse, or roughly the same without it.

Some people found that the Internet became a delivery system or conduit for broken hearts, lost fortunes, and destroyed relationships, as well as other parts of their lives. As for me, I'd rather have a real hundred-dollar bill in my pocket rather than a virtual one, even if it takes longer to get it.

This is not to discount the many merits of online communication, education, and interaction, especially for people who live in remote areas or have difficulty getting around. With those exceptions, and more I haven't mentioned, whenever things become easier, or appear to be easier, on a grand scale, there is always a price to pay. We may also be susceptible to becoming so familiar with and accustomed to greater ease in different parts of our lives, that we don't see our personal and interpersonal "bank accounts" dwindling with funds that may not always be easy to replace.

I haven't looked at the data recently, and I wouldn't care much if it didn't reflect the reality that more people experience anxiety and depression than I've ever seen. The knee-jerk answer about such things is that, instead of increasing incidences of anxiety, depression and addictions, we're better able to know about such things, and they're being tracked more efficiently. Because of technology.

I understand meaning and purpose in my own life, but I can't give that to someone else. There are millions of different paths to finding meaning, and many of them turn out to be false leads that become dead ends. My own sense is that meaning and purpose are not to be found in our achievements, in abundance, in wealth, or even in happiness, but that they're discovered through suffering. And I start from a place where just being human is to be suffering. This helps me to defuse any complaints I might have around how just living in my everydayness is painful (life is supposed to be hard), and it helps me be prepared for the broader and sometimes unwanted challenges in life.

Back to the article. On follow-up experiments, they found that it was not the drug itself, or the availability of the drug, that promoted addiction. Instead, it was the near complete isolation of the earlier rats that ultimately led them to continue injecting themselves with morphine as opposed to the rats in the later experiments that were allowed to be social, to play, to relax, and to enjoy themselves. The greater majority of those rats never got to the level of addiction.

Our alienation from each other, our extreme isolation from people and things that cause us the slightest discomfort, and the rigidity that we practice around our thinking and beliefs as a result of subtle but mounting fears through the past two or three generations..all of these things and more make us perfectly vulnerable to looking for a way out, not matter how destructive.

When it comes to human beings and human motivations, fear almost always wins out over logic. Just look around at all the hatred, killing, wars, threats of violence, and the neglect of people in need you're hungry for examples of this. In the end, alcohol and drugs, as well as other addictions, such as Internet addiction and gaming, must have filled avoid and are addressing at least some semblance of a need that is not being fulfilled. So, what are we missing, and what price are we paying in order to make our lives easier?

I may not believe that science or advancing technology are the enemy, but I'm certain that they don't care about making friends either.

PiratePrentice

While we have substantial common ground, EndGame, I would just still disagree with you on the fact that the science is still out on addiction. There are scientific and behavioral models. In my five years of CBT and my time spent researching, I do believe there is an objective explanation. You may have much more experience, I concede, but science and behavioral studies have done much to explain it. If you won't agree that they have fully accomplished that goal, I will just respectfully disagree with you, because you have proven you have more experience than me. I can deal with that, and I'm not trying to be condescending. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I just want to let people know there is an alternative to religious awakenings/acceptance, when it comes to being sober.

Just imagine that AA instead had the prerequisite of accepting there is no higher power and that there is no God. That's how we, atheists, feel. It goes against our beliefs.

I may not have many days under my belt at the moment, as I'm between CBT therapists, but I think there is a scientific or behavioral model to which us atheists can turn to help better ourselves and tak solace in. I trust that you have greater knowledge than me, based on the credentials you have listed. But science regarding addiction does exist.

It would be like you claiming climate change isn't a real thing that affects all of us. The scientific consensus is in. I think we can all agree that it is a real, dangerous threat. But in the US, half the country doesn't believe it. That's ridiculous. It's important to have faith in the scientific community.

I have no problems with face-to-face interactions. I'm an actor and standup comedian. I don't want to out myself, because I'm way too embarrassed, but you may have seen me on television or in the moves. I just don't feel the need to better myself with a God or higher power. I'd rather just accept that I have a maladaptive behavior and thought process, and that it can be helped through CBT. Which is based in science, at least part of the time.

Again, you have credentials and so many years under your belt that I can't claim to be smarter than you. I strive to be as successful as you. I just want people to know that there is a scientific and logical explanation for addiction that can be treated in scientific and logical ways, without having to step beyond our, atheist, non-religious beliefs. We don't need to better ourselves spiritually. I have never attended an AA meeting, so you're completely correct in calling me out for judging something I've never experienced. But I've found that CBT has been helpful in so many aspects of my life.

I don't know, man. I think we have a lot in common. I just don't want to turn off any lurkers. There's my viewpoint- which embraces the science and medicine we do have right now, and there's yours, which embraces personal interactions and spiritual awakenings (I assume). Both seem to work. I would encourage others to do what they feel is best for them. But there are two sides here, and it would be silly to not acknowledge that. We may never know which one is best. But you have said many intelligent things, and hopefully we have provided a useful Point/Counterpoint to anyone seeking an answer.

PiratePrentice

*science still IN on addiction

NoelleR

Hey EndGameNYC, I thought I'd read that the results of the Rat Park experiment have not been replicated (this was six years ago), making it a one-shot deal, just a nice theory. Has it been replicated.....?

(o:

LastDrinks

Thanks EndGame. Agree with everything you said there. The existential side of thought and therapy is at the core of this really isn't it? I like Nietzsche's approach to this personally myself..

The whole rat city thing seems to make a lot more sense especially now, as you said with the internet, I think people are more connected yet more disconnected from the community level. The incidence of mental illness and addiction rising seems to be related to this as well as other things like way more relationships are failing, mental health not being the white elephant in the room anymore, non traditional family units, diet, lifestyle, a more uneven spread of wealth and social services... the list of what is wrong in the world these days goes on and on.

Great to hear your opinion as a shrink on this site.

Lightning Bug

I believe that a recovery program is unique and personal to the addict and that there are many tools available in the area of addiction recovery to form one's own program. This may include AA, it may not. It may include only the fellowship of AA and not the steps. It may be just Big Book and no fellowship, sponsorship or steps. These are all tools. Take what you need from any of the programs and leave the rest. It is your choice.

I don't believe in God, I did have a pink elephant in the room of a moment when I came out of rehab and thought I did (after my whole life not believing). But my "spiritual experience" in rehab was more of a discovery or awareness of the world around me. I thought that it could have been God, but the agnostic in me still refuses to believe without evidence. So, my higher power, if I have one, has to be the universe and all it contains. How the universe came to be is not important to me, it is my sobriety that is. So I fit myself in to the world and concentrate on not using. I don't go to AA or NA, I follow a lot of Smart Recovery, some of AVRT, some Big Book teachings, CBT, and this website. It works for me. It is not all of nothing. Do what works to keep you sober.

dwtbd

To me, imho, from my understanding ect,,It's not rocket science, the solution to ending an addiction is simple, stop consuming the addictive substance ( or behavior) and refrain from consumption of that substance in the future. The 'science' of what 'causes' the addiction notwithstanding.
Citing or debating the validity of studies of addiction is an academic exercise , while important in a general sense , it has little or no bearing on any individual experience. It isn't a necessary component of any modality as it pertains to an individual ending an addiction and their ability to remain sober.
I think B Franklin assigned the positive and negative nomenclature that describes the 'flow' of electricity, whether I believe that is a valid description or not does little or nothing for me when the battery in my car 'dies'. As I type this, I realize this could be a poor analogy, I would need to know a little about polarity to use a set of jumper cables safely. But then again, I do not need to understand and be able to explain correctly the physics involved , I just need to recognize that the battery is dead and it needs to be changed. Knowing why the charge depleted won't change the fact it needs to be changed. Knowing the science of electricity doesn't affect the fact that batteries lose charge , that knowledge could prove helpful in 'overall' battery maintenance , but is not a necessary requirement to having a battery that works.
And just because I'm already feeling a little preachy, the words 'scientific' and 'consensus' are rarely used correctly in the same sentence.

Aellyce

Well I am an alcoholic in recovery ans also a scientist studying addiction and other mental health-related conditions and I am not going to get too defensive about my views as they are obviously biased. Will just say that the field of neuroscience has undergone tremendous progress in understanding how many mental illnesses work during the past few decades and this continuously open up avenues for developing new treatment interventions. Saying that science has no usefulness in all this in a general sense is a very superficial statement IMO, but it's perfectly fine to think whatever if what we do for recovery brings positive results.

The scientifically based interventions of course are not magic wands that will suddenly make the problems go away and never present a challenge anymore, but many of them do have benefits for a lot of people (if nothing else, think about modern psychopharmacology). Nowadays it strives to be highly individualized given how the biological setup of human beings is diverse and unique. So most of these will never work universally for everyone and, just like other approaches that can be helpful in recovery, each of us need to find what works best and that can take some trial and error.

I did research on these things both before and after getting sober and during a relapse. The scientific knowledge never saved me from the addiction but I do very much feel that it helps a lot in recovery, being aware what is going on in my brain when I have cravings, for example, or why it takes a good while to become grounded in sobriety, what I can do actively to reinforce it. I also found this knowledge helpful during my relapse in terms of not letting it go too far even though science obviously did not prevent it. I remember before I got into this field of science that so many things in my personality and behavior seemed mysterious, disturbing, and I had no idea what I could do to change them effectively or even understand them. So for me, all this has been helpful.

For those that are interested in the "rat park", look up things on "environmental enrichment" related to addictions. It is very much part of plenty of ongoing studies and current theories.

fini

let me add a worm to the can.
or maybe pull out one specific one:
AA is not about addiction. the steps are guidelines for a discipline, a spiritual solution to what in this paradigm is seen basically as a spiritual dislocation/lostness/misalignment which is expressed in symptoms, one of which is drinking.
science is concerned with addiction per se. CBT is a tool , a technique. a very useful and effective one.

CBT and "the program" aren't comparable, or alternatives to each other. they address entirely different "problems".

dwtbd

Aellyce
I'm a sciencephile, unfortunately never translated to doing anything with it other than being enamored with all things scientific. Neuroscience and the availability of technologies that can enhance those studies are extremely exciting and will bring a clearer and clearer understanding of 'humanology'.
I applaud ( and I know you do not state them for my applauding) your research and your motivations for it. I believe such endeavors are very important 'in the general sense' and will contribute greatly in our understanding and will/may lead to an overall decrease in the aggregate suffering of addiction . We do already Know the solution , yes?
Neuroscience and psychological sciences do seem to be the obvious avenues to focus on when divining the root causes, but or rather and imho, they will always need to be tempered with liberal doses of philosophy if for no other reason than to account for freewill.
#1 Stop
#2 Don't ( see #1) is my philo, That is the beginning middle and end , why I need it ? the explanation may certainly help or be welcomed, but I don't 'need' it , yes ?
Notice I did leave out the 'happy' part of it, being happy in general and how to 'explain' the scientific way to achieve it is probably going to come from the more general 'humanology ' and not mutually exclusive of sobriety, I think, imho, we are in a wonderful age of technological progress, but I think the science of being human and happiness has been on going for a long while and may never really be answered 'in the general sense'.

Aellyce

dwtbd, I agree completely. I have had an interest in spiritual pursuits since I was a kid and explored many things in a sort of layman way, but never settled with any one view. I have the same relationship with philosophy -- that would have been actually my first choice even for a career when I was very young but my desire for doing something more directly pragmatic won over it, also wanted to get into something with broader actual job opportunities. But these things remain hobbies for me. It wasn't an easy choice to decide whether to be more drawn to science or the humanities and I only actually made a "choice" as far as work goes and not even there completely. But life is much more than work and we are not discussing work here.

I have met a good number of hardcore materialistic scientists who become just as narrow-minded in their view and passion as any other extreme can get. I much prefer to keep an open mind to many possible avenues, especially to those that we do not know from direct experience yet. In some way, I feel that having an open mind can much more effectively increase our chances to to experience moments of that so called happiness -- if for nothing else, because we are open to a variety of possible sources for it.

I kinda forgot what the OP topic was here though so maybe a note on that one. My view on that is that there are so many methods for recovery available nowadays and while the accessibility of 3D meeting types depend on location, I don't think that it is necessary to follow any one of them completely if it's not helpful, as long as whatever approach helps in sobriety, it is valid enough and we are free to take what is useful and leave the rest, be it spiritual, scientific and anything.

shirlygirly

I was raised by an atheist and an agnostic, so I keep it simple. GOD = Group Of Drunks. With them, I can stay sober. Without them, I can't.

EndGameNYC

You've made so many wide-ranging claims, and misstated my own published statements to such an extent that I won't even attempt to respond to all but a few of your comments.

I just want to get this one out of the way...Your apparent belief that people will be dissuaded to try a particular type of treatment for addictions, based on claims that every type of treatment has its limitations, including AA and CBT, is misplaced. Every form of treatment for addictions has its flaws, and no one way will work for everyone, or even for a majority of people who seek help. I'd rather believe that people either are, or will become, aware of this simple reality. Neither I nor anyone else here has stated that CBT or other psychotherapies are unhelpful in treating addictions. You gotta get off of this criticism, but it seems that you either cannot or will not get past this.

Explanations are not at all the same as uncovering the cause of a thing, and there are typically multiple explanations for the same thing, which is certainly true of addictions, not to mention the effects and efficacy of CBT and other forms of psychotherapy. Finding or devising explanations of things is driven by our natural curiosity and a desire to know. To know how things work, and how they came about in the first place. But we frequently discover that there are different types of explanations for the same phenomenon, and that it is not easy to reduce these sometimes competing explanations to a single, overarching explanation.

Many people are able to use CBT to help them get and remain sober, as well as to modify other, unwanted behaviors. Usually, when a particular treatment does not work out for someone here on SR, you read things like "AA didn't work for me." "Therapy didn't work for me." "AVRT didn't work for me." And what you rarely read is "I wasn't able to get sober in AA." "I wasn't able to get sober using CBT." "I wasn't able to get sober with AVRT." To be genuine about our apparent convictions about the efficacy of different treatments for different people, then we first need to be honest about whether or not it was the treatment itself or my way of participating in the treatment that failed. Or maybe something else altogether. I'll leave that one open for people to draw their own conclusions.

The success rates of studies that look at CBT and other psychotherapies, and at treatments that are not considered to be "therapies," including AA, are overstated. Research that studies particular forms of treatment are done under both controlled and otherwise optimum conditions for the type of treatment of interest, neither of which exist beyond the laboratory. Another problem is that there is a certain percentage of people who volunteer for these studies who are, by virtue of their volunteering, ready and willing to get better, part of what is known as the problem of "self-selection," and a variable that also influences the "placebo effect." How variables such as "improvement" are defined and how long improvement lasts varies from study to study. Is it ninety days? Six months? A year? Is it the removal or lessening of one symptom? Two? Most?

You may not be aware of the reliable finding that, no matter what the type of psychotherapy, the education and experience of the therapist, and the competency of the therapist, what matters most in terms of the efficacy of treatment depends largely on the quality of the relationship between the therapist and his patient. What would science have to say about that?

I don't believe that we have very much in common at all. First, and as you did with my viewpoint, I won't attempt to misstate your point of view but will, instead, quote your own words. You even added the notion that my viewpoint "embraces spiritual awakenings." Never said anything of the kind. I don't know if you've not been paying attention, or you just don't get what I'm writing. As for your claim that "there are two sides here," why is it that you seem to be content with acknowledging only two sides that only have in common their narrow conceptualizations? And at least one of which belongs to neither of us?

Neither am I endorsing or promoting either the existence or the power of God or a Higher Power. I've known many people, both in and out of AA, who've gotten sober without a spiritual awakening or a belief in God. I don't know how you missed this in my comments, since I never made a contrary claim. What I do encourage is creativity of thought that's not limited to scientific principles which, and has been abundantly demonstrated, can only take us so far.

Science-by-consensus and truth-by-consensus are both misleading and potentially dangerous. Consensus does not imply that rationality or reason played a part in that which has been agreed upon. Nor does it guaranteed either the accuracy, existence, or utility of its conclusions. It only states that a simple majority agreed on some principle or phenomenon.

Science is a belief system based on certain, often universal, principles. Your words: "It's important to have faith in the scientific community." Science offers only one perspective that reaches conclusions that are limited to its methods and principles. Scientific conclusions are, and always have been, confined to the limits we experience as thinking beings. It is neither the final word on reality and, in itself, does nothing to advance what it means to be human.

Science-by-consensus is an agreement among people who may or not be competent at what they do, and who may or may not be correct in their conclusions, conclusions that are based on specific principles and on a particular method. Again, beyond scientific validity, attaching the modifier 'scientific' to an explanation or model does not grant it "extra" validity or credibility. It only describes that certain principles and methods were employed in order to arrive at particular conclusions or, more accurately, particular explanations. I don't fault you for your apparent over-reliance on the scientific method to solve uniquely human problems. A great many people feel the same way. But, in the end, it is simply another kind of belief based on a specific set of principles that often fails us, and just as frequently, creates larger threats to existence, or at least to a more peaceful existence.

We're not supposed to be criticizing different kinds of treatment, but I would find it irresponsible not to challenge your ideas of a program you've never experienced beyond what you may have read. "I just want to let people know there is an alternative to religious awakenings/acceptance, when it comes to being sober." AA promotes a reliance on a Higher Power of our own understanding, to one extent or another, and varies with each group. AA, like any other treatment, doesn't make you do anything you don't want to do. It's a from of treatment and/or support. It can't make anyone do anything. My inclination, again, is to treat people as though they can discriminate for themselves which treatment they'd choose to attempt without doing a Chicken Little about treatments that I may not like or with which I may not agree. The only caveat I carry is my conviction that we don't know what kind of treatment or support will help us to achieve sobriety until we've done it.

Once again, we need to be more creative in order to stop killing ourselves. Science is not the place to look, at least not primarily, and certainly not exclusively, especially given the poverty of viable solutions for addictions after several decades of employing the scientific method to get there.

CelticZebra

I have finally read this whole thread and will probably meander off course in my attempt at explaining how I see things from my view.

Firstly if you feel AA won't fit, as others have said try something else.

I have tried everything out there accessible to me yet the only thing that ultimately stops me from drinking is myself and the words "I never now drink"
Cured from drinking with AVRT, Google the online crash course.
Stopped just like that, wasn't easy going. I do stuff with my time now and create a life for myself to enjoy. as long as I recognise my AV (addictive voice) and remind it that 'I never drink now' there is no maintenance required to stay sober.

As for other parts of my life, I am more responsible now, I am more interested in looking after, not only my mental health but also my physical health and emotional wellbeing

the question of spirituality, higher powers and God don't have to come into it.
That's just as well because I'm still undecided about the whole religion question.

Regardless, I became a Phormer Drunk and experienced the ACE effect, which I could describe as an epiphany.
I believe I no longer drink now, this belief is true and cannot be changed as it is always now and, you know, I never now drink!

Everything is a part of everything else which means that both science, religion and magic can co-exist alongside humans, plants and animals without one being the whole truth.

I like the feelings I get from being truthful abut myself, to myself and others and have never missed the confusion, fear and despair that go hand in hand with addiction.
I really like the feelings of never worrying about what state I might get into or how I may behave as I am much more aware of my needs and can clearly understand myself and others much better without lies.

It feels good to be alive and sober.

Congrats to all you sober people out there

Keep on keeping on

Driving my wagon of hope through beautiful views on my road to myself

Aellyce

I think for many people it is important to work with a recovery approach that is at least somewhat aligned with what is acceptable to us. I don't see anything wrong with trying those first and not the ones that are in opposition with our personal views. But maybe it is better not to attack other methods just because they don't work for us or are not interested.

For those who like CBT, perhaps SMART meetings and the methodology can be interesting. It is also free, involve community, and can also involve doing volunteer work for the community.

EndGameNYC

Thank you.

PiratePrentice

Listen, guys, I'm sorry. I should have never gotten involved in this thread. I didn't even read that last detailed retort where I was quoted a bit ago, but, fine, whatever it is you said, you're right, and I'm wrong. Don't even know what we're talking about at this point. I have no desire to defend myself anymore, and that's probably a good thing, because I'm wrong. So, for anyone reading this, dismiss all of my posts in this thread. I'm wrong. I'm sorry, I really am. Take what you will from this conversation if anything is helpful for you to hear. Whatever I've said, everything everyone else said is probably infinitely more wise. I know little, in general.