I was up late last night watching the Super Bowl coverage, and I don’t feel like working. So, I thought I would take a quick moment to explain the 5% success rate to those of you who aren’t very good with numbers, like our friend McGowdog, who wrote the following in the comment section:
So there’s your strawman argument right there. Y’all learned it from Agent Orange and are spewing it out right here. The “thousands of interpretations in between” is your assessment of a fellowship that still has recovery rates vastly more successful than the dribble that Orange spews out and you mimic here. Here’s a truer retention rate of A.A.s by length of sobriety which debunks Oranges and others observation of AAWS stats;
A.A. Members’ Length of Sobriety:
Less than one year….. 26%
1-5 years………………. 24%
5-10 years…………….. 14%
10+ years………………. 36%
Yet, y’all are going to gasp with fear when you see this and you all know in your little heads that it’s 5% or less. In fact, you think the retention rate of A.A. is a negative percentage, everybody is drunk, and everybody who gets breathed on by an A.A.er is going to get drunk as well as it’s a contagious disease.
There is a reason why we don’t allow anecdotal evidence in science. It is more often wrong than right. Perception can be a crazy thing sometimes. A person walking into an established AA group might be led to believe that it really is effective in getting people off of the sauce. After all, a good portion of the room is quit, and has stayed quit for some time. Obviously, it works for some folks, right? Well, no. Not really.
The most common reason people fall for pseudoscience is because they mistake correlation with cause. Correlation simply means there is a relationship between two different things. For example, most racing horse jockeys are very short and small, and most professional basketball players are very tall. Does horse racing shorten people, and does basketball make people taller? Of course not. Do hospitals make people sick? No. The reason basketball players are tall, is because tall people congregate to basketball teams. Sick people congregate to hospitals. Likewise, people who quit drinking congregate to AA. There is no difference really.
Now, having said this, correlation is the best starting point in looking for a cause. So, since so many people in AA have been quit for a substantial amount of time, the obvious thing to do is to see if AA is the cause. The only way to do that is run the numbers, and in doing so the numbers come out to a 5% quit rate. Also, McGowdog’s numbers are correct, as well. Those were drawn from AA’s triennial survey. So how can those numbers be correct, and the success rate be 5% at the same time? I’ll explain:
Take out a calculator and draw yourself out a bell curve.
Now take the actual figures from AA’s survey, including those who began AA and dropped out of the program. From their own internal figures, the dropout rate within the first year is 95%. The chance of success at that point is much greater, and 30% of those who make it the first year will make it to year five. Beyond that 95% are successful long term quitters.
Now, assume a new chapter is started with exactly 100 members and a new person filling in the void left when a member leaves. At the end of year one, you have 5 one year members and 95 who have been there for less than a year. Go forward another year. You will now have close 10 successful quitters of one and two years (actually, between 9 and 10 if you assume the average, but since you can’t split an actual person, I’m rounding up). Fast forward ten years, and that chapter will have a good many permanent quitters. It looks impressive to anyone attending their first meeting. You’ll have close to 70 people (70%) of the room who have quit for 6 months or more. Of those, close to half are at 5 years or longer. All of them attributing their success to AA. All of them telling you to work the steps and you can do as they did. Now fast forward 20 years, keep the same success rates of 5%, 30% and 95%, the room looks even more impressive. And if you took a survey of only those who are active members, plot them on that bell curve, you will come up with numbers almost identical to the survey you linked to has:
35% have been sober for over 10 years.
16% have been sober between 5-10 years.
28% have been sober between 1-5 years.
22% have been sober less that 1 year.
With an average of 8 years sober.
The numbers are very similar to McGowdog’s. They are slightly different, only because he used a different year’s survey, and the numbers vary slightly from survey to survey.
This is a 5% rate of successful quitters.
Now, is AA 5% effective? No. It is really 0% effective, because 5% would have quit on their own, anyway. To determine the real rate of effectiveness, the baseline is set at 5%, not 0. Any number above that shows the efficacy of the program.
Think about this next time someone says, “I’ve seen it work with my own eyes.” They aren’t lying. In this case it McGowdog mistaking cause and correlation. It is like someone discovering fool’s gold. They get all pumped up and want tell the world because they think they got hold of something good. That’s what McGow did in showing these numbers of AA’s success rate. He isn’t lying. He’s just ignorant.
I hope today’s lesson clarifies some these points for our resident AAs. Tomorrow’s lesson: Your ass from a hole in the ground: A comparative study.
Stinkin' Thinkin' 
February 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Nice. Back atcha M.A.
For one thing, I think hospitals DO make people sick. But I’ll claim that one a personal opinion.
What if I come into A.A. in 1984, then again in 1994, then again in 2004 and have been sober for 6 + years now? What is A.A.’s failure rate? What is my success rate of “quitting on my own?”
What if Joe Schmoe comes into A.A. in 1984 and then comes back into A.A. a year later and gets and stays sober for good and continues to be a member of A.A.? What’s his success rate and A.A.’s retention or failure rate?
What if Julie Schmoe comes into A.A. on December 5th, 2008 and that happens to also be her last drink until she dies? Does that make her success rate 100% and A.A.’s success rate a + 0.000005% or 5e-7? Since she is just one in 2 million?
Guys like McGowdog are NOT ignorant because they are the ones on the firing line, going to meetings, meeting new drunks, old drunks, nonAA punks, alanot funks, horny skunks…
I’m an E.E. and Got an A in Calc 1 and 2, a B in Calc 3 and Diff EQ, Calc based Physics 1 and 2. Do you really want to test my math?
February 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm
You are the one who posted that data, McGowdog. Either you understood it, and chose to mislead people. Or, you did not understand it. My guess is you did not understand it. Trust me on this, though. You being an engineer does not qualify you as an expert on statistics. That is what is called an “argument from authority”, which is another piece of fallacious logic. I happen to be a stockbroker and a drunk. I even once thought I saw God during an LSD trip back in college. True story. Still, I haven’t waved my credentials at you AAs. Apparently, that somehow qualifies me as a quit drinking guru.
The other questions you asked can also be easily explained. I can also use the data to show how AA actually has a negative effect compared to doing nothing. It doesn’t matter, though. Christ himself can show up in San Antonio this year, and yell out to everyone at the convention that it is all cult nonsense, and a good percentage would yell back at him that he just has resentments. This is why I cannot, and will not argue with someone who is under AA’s spell.
I actually wish nobody who frequents this blog would debate you. The best way for us to make our points is to post an article, and have you respond. I believe you and Tony are typical of what one will find in the rooms. I don’t need to call you deluded. I’m better off letting others judge that for themselves. You make our case more than anything we have written on this blog, and you don’t realize it.
February 8, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Oh, well then you must be Bill W. reincarnate! Just like Danny Boy! I’m impressed.
To be good at Calculus, you have to be very good at algebra, trig and some geometry, and have the basic math skills down. I’ve never been accused of being stupid in the classroom or on the job. But then again, I don’t make YT vids saying how smart I am either =)
So… I’ll try to think like y’all and maybe give some of your lady posters a little female wood;
A.A. is a religion and a cult. It’s 95% ineffective and it kills alcoholics. AAers are predatory hacks who only want to prey on the vulnerable.
If you’re a MOTRer, then you’re brainwashed and a head-nodding drooler. If you’re a recovered alcoholic hardliner, you’re abusive and selfish, only using their pigeons to help them paint their house and charge money to help them through the steps. You are given no credit whatsoever for staying sober and helping the newcomer find sobriety. You are given no credit for being a success in A.A. and are given all the blame for the MOTRers who stay sober on A.A. slogans and/or treatment center slogans.
A.A. has a stranglehold on the courts and the treatment centers, forcing judges and professional counselors to send their clients to A.A. so they can get that extra buck in the basket.
13th stepping is always encouraged and A.A. has complete control over the other sick vulnerable newcomers’ habits and behaviors.
All A.A.s are given power to tell the newcomer that they must not seek outside professional help/counseling and all prescription drugs are to be forbidden and if you do not comply you are to be banned permanently from A.A.
A.A.s traditions and concepts are put into place so A.A. can completely duck responsibility and accountability and to prevent its competition from putting a stop to it.
A.A. came about in the mid-30s because there were so many other methods being used on alcoholics that were so effective… that these drunks wanted to sabotage such wonderful progress and bring the recovery of alcoholism back down to its knees, where it belongs.
An alcoholic has absolutely no right and no motivation and no expertise on the illness of alcoholism. This industry should be left to the experts such as the doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, counselors, etc. You’ve got to go to college for 12 to 20 years and get a plaque that says that you’re sane and everybody else is not… in order to help the suffering alcoholic.
And the bottom line is this; if you want to stop drinking alcohol, just choose not to do so. Then you can spend the rest of your life dogging the A.A. fellowship and tearing apart this fellowship which attempts to help its own and charges no money.
There. Now can I join your club? I’m not going down to San Antonio because it’s an infestation of H1N1. So… I think I’ll pass.
February 8, 2010 at 6:13 pm
That is not bad, Dog. You are finally getting it.
I actually like Danny. I wish he would stop by.
February 8, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Um……I hate to bring this up (no I don’t) but the AA triennial survey does not show that 5 of 100 members would still be sober after 1 year. It shows that 26 members would be sober.
I don’t know why so few people understand how to read that chart. It measures the percentage with less than one year who have been sober the given length of time. There were 19 in the first month and 5 in month 12. That indicates that 26% (19/5) of new members are still there in month 12.
There is no AA data that indicates a 5% success rate. That’s just Orange’s propaganda that has been turned into an urban legend. Orange misread the chart. Something to consider when you look to him as you leader, imho.
And Joedrywall is right. There are no real numbers anyway. It’s an anonymous organization….duh.
February 8, 2010 at 9:08 pm
You don’t know how to read the information, Tony. This data is not from Orange, it is from the triennial survey itself. If you wish to read it, it is linked here on the blog somewhere.
The 26% percent is the percentage of current AAs who have been sober for one year or less, not the success rate. There is a difference, and a grade nine student can plug in the variables from the triennial survey and come up with the proper 5% percent. A grade one student can read the words which state it directly on the survey – it has a 95% failure rate. It is no big secret.
I can’t spoon feed math knowledge to you, any more than I can teach how to properly spell. In a situation like this, it is better to stay quiet.
February 8, 2010 at 10:18 pm
You can’t spoon feed me any knowledge that you don’t have.
I understand exactly what the chart represents.
If you don’t (and you don’t) then you have just compared yourself unfavorably to a grade 9 student. Which seems about right to me.
As far as reading the chart at a grade 1 level, that is pretty much what you are doing. You see numbers you don’t understand so you make them mean what you want.
Silly old man.
BTW, when a person on the internet picks at spelling they are attempting to use the ‘arguement from authority’ tactic.
Since you don’t think that tactic is fair when someone else uses it, you probably shouldn’t use it yourself.
February 8, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Actually, that is an “ad hominem” argument, Tony. Not argument from authority. You must have taken philosophy the same place you took spelling and math,<—-also ad hominem
February 9, 2010 at 12:06 am
No it’s not. You didn’t attack me, only my spelling.
Are you really as stupid as you are pretending to be ?
Pay attention.
” You are a pompous little prick.”
That was an ad hominem. See, I attacked something about you that, although true, was not pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Which is the AA triennial survey. You anti-AA’s can’t stick to your points at all.
“Now take the actual figures from AA’s survey, including those who began AA and dropped out of the program. From their own internal figures, the dropout rate within the first year is 95%.”
This statement is false. You made it up.(actually Orange made it up, but you want the credit so I’ll give it to you) AA’s internal figures show no such thing. They show a 26% retention rate or a 74% drop out rate.
February 9, 2010 at 12:36 am
If AA were in fact experiencing a 26% annual retention rate, it should be doubling in size every four years. Since its membership numbers have shown little, if any increase since the 1990’s, where are all these retainees going?
February 9, 2010 at 3:42 am
At the moment I’m discussing this chart :
Click to access AACOMMPR.PDF
This is were the 5% myth originated as far as I can tell. Orange still has his misrepresentation on his site, as you all know.
M A is claiming that it shows a 5% yearly retention rate (because it ends with the number 5 and that’s about as much math as he knows).
The chart actually shows a 26% retention rate for members within the first year who have remained 12 months. (in the 12th month actually).
The latest survey is 1989 so I can’t address 1990 with it. But if your data is anything like the rest of the data presented on this site, it’s probably bogus so I’m not worried about it.
February 9, 2010 at 5:13 am
Let me put it another way. AA’s stated membership numbers, lack of growth, and stated lengths of sobriety all strongly indicate an annual retention rate of about 5%. Scream about charts, jump up and down about Hodgins being guilty of everything except the Lindbergh kidnapping, damn the statistics, and attack everyone who disagrees with you, but you still aren’t going to get the numbers to work out differently. AA manages, and has always managed, to retain only about five percent of all attendees for a period of one year.
February 9, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Says you.
But since you won’t back up your assertion with fact, who cares ?
We are trying to discuss the source of your 5% now and you refuse to participate.
That tells me you aren’t very confident of your own sources.
February 9, 2010 at 11:35 am
There isn’t a 1990 survey. It comes out every three years. Hence, the name “triennial survey”.<—today's lesson 1 AA looked so bad in this, that it no longer releases the entire survey. It doesn’t really matter in terms of determining the effectiveness, because they do release some numbers, such as what McGowdog cited. With those, one can take out a calculator and plug in the known variables to determine the drop-out rate. The results vary only slightly from survey to survey, and they each show the same five percent retention rate. Enough survey results have been released to conclude that the 5% is the expected value. This is called the “law of large numbers”.<—lesson 2
No, the survey shows that 26 out 100 who filled out the survey had been in AA for one year or less. This number is not the retention rate. That 26 figure represents only current, active members – not people who have come and gone from the group. In order to determine the retention rate, you must factor in those who left.
February 9, 2010 at 11:42 pm
What ?
You are confusing ‘growth rate’ with ‘retention rate’. It’s another indication that you shouldn’t be playing with numbers.
Using the figures provided by MA 26% of all AA’s have less than 1 year sobriety. If 26% of that population will stay sober for 1 year then we would have something like 6 3/4 percent growth from the new members.
So how does 6/34 X 4 double the original population ?
It’s possible very possible that 6 3/4 percent of members drop out for one reason or another every year. If that were the case the membership numbers would remain the same.
You guys don’t even try to do the math do you ?
It’s embarassing.
February 9, 2010 at 1:13 am
Are you for real, Tony, or are you a parody?
February 9, 2010 at 3:59 am
No, I’m a human being.
I have a name, see ? It’s Tony.
You and H however, I’m not so sure about.
No identity and a cheap mock up site stolen directly from The Orange Papers.
It seems you might be the parody here. Making a fool out of yourself to prove how silly the anti-AA movement is.
That would mean your life isn’t totally void of purpose.
We can only hope for the best.
February 9, 2010 at 3:19 am
Think about what you just said. If 74% was the dropout rate it still is pretty bad.
February 9, 2010 at 3:47 am
Not according to the wizard M A.
He says 5% would quit on their own. So AA would have been over 5 times as effective as nothing.
(this is using the data MA has provided mind you)
And that’s the end of the “AA is ineffective or even worse than no treatment” argument.
Then you guys have no reason to save the world from AA anymore and you’ll all have to find a job or something terrible like that.
(btw, he stole that whole argument Orange too, but don’t tell him I know. He wants me to think he’s clever)
February 9, 2010 at 3:56 am
Key Word: IF
February 9, 2010 at 5:36 am
Another little factoid. Almost all forms of treatment have a placebo effect of 30%, this can be for a drug, a medical intervention or whatever. A retention rate of a certain pecent doesn’t mean these people are sober. In fact, the retention rate probably reflects the huge amount of coerced attendees. You are coming up short, even “IF” the retention rate was 26% which it isn’t.
February 9, 2010 at 5:05 pm
It is according to MA’s source document.
If his source is wrong, it’s not my fault.
The chart speaks for itself.
As far as a placebo effect goes, that’s just a red herring you’re throwing in to divert attention from the fact that you can’t win this argument based on the facts.
February 10, 2010 at 12:51 am
I think what you mean to say is only 30% of people are susceptible to a placebo effect. That didn’t sound quite right to me, so I looked it up on wiki.
February 9, 2010 at 12:55 am
Oh, smack! Go back to your corner MA. Stay down! Stay down! You’re bleeding from your eye sockets!
Stay down MA! Stay down! BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!
February 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Cheers of smack-down from someone who tries to recruit trolls back-channel to come here and join your efforts? Lame, very lame. You are much like a bad card-player, bragging about great hands while accidentally showing everyone your ten-high nothing laffer.
February 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I like what Danny put up on his blog, and the fact that it doesn’t have a success rate. The problem lies in lies. The fact that early AA hangs out some claim of 75% or 93%. Who did the actual counting? It’s not like they picked a hundred random drinkers, and had an arbitrary third party evaluate the results.
Early AA bogus success was based on those who really tried, that is attended 10 or more meetings, or those who completed 90/90. If you dropped out before 90/90 you didn’t count I guess.
February 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm
thanks for the post.
I always like looking at numbers, I think looking at the numbers for the success rate of AA is impossible. AA doesn’t fail, it is the addicts who don’t want to be sober who don’t succeed.
If someone truly did all that AA says to do, including that desire to stay sober, well, they would be sober.
The sucess rate should be based on drunks who tray to stay sober and not on AA.
February 9, 2010 at 12:34 am
Is it like saying that The Boy Scouts failed because I didn’t get my camping badge???
February 9, 2010 at 1:15 am
If the objective is to earn a camping badge, yes, they failed.
February 9, 2010 at 1:41 am
Key word in your statement is “Earn”
February 9, 2010 at 1:14 am
Personally I think this is the most ridiculous subject that anyone could discuss. I see people coming to AA by the hundreds and leaving by the 99s for any number of reasons. First and foremost they come because their ass is in the wringer. As soon as their ass is out of the wringer, they leave.
There’s two Alcoholics Anonymouses out there. One is a Spiritual Program of Action and the other is simply a place to go. Those that treat it as a place to go don’t get it. They leave, they drink, and say AA didn’t work.
Well, from the bottom of my serenity, “Fuck Them” They can’t leave soon enough. When they’re serious about quitting, they swallow their inflated egos and become a little more willing to do what the program “Suggests” then it’s possible they may do a little better.
AAs 12 steps are a “Suggested” program of recovery. To me that means that AA is simply a “Suggestion”
Meaning, this is what worked for me. If you’re interested, here’s the keys. If for some reason you are unable or unwilling to take all 12 steps, as they are written, go away! Don’t contaminate these meetings like a spreading fungus that thinks we’re here to hug and support each other sober without God.
AA is 12 steps that mention God. If that’s not what you’re doing in AA as a “Member” that you’re doing something other than AA. You just happen to be doing it at an AA meeting.
So the fact of the matter is that people are staying sober without AA moreso than they are with AA. I’d say about 80-20. That’s just the ones in the meetings.
No shit. Just a rough guess tells me that 80% of the people in AA aren’t doing AA. They just go to meetings and tell other people that the key to sobriety is to not drink and go to meetings. Hence it spreads like the afore mentioned “Fungus”
February 9, 2010 at 1:54 am
I understand what you are saying, Cuda. I really do. The problem is, AA accepts anyone who wants to quit drinking, and it tells them they can take what they want and the program will work. You might not agree with it, but it happens. But I understand you point that it will water down the success rates if there are people there not serious about quitting. Obviously, it will. No doubt.
The problem is that the control group that AA is compared to, those alcoholics quit on their own, also includes people who don’t want to quit drinking. If fact, it includes a lot more of those than a group in AA. A much higher percentage, as most won’t even try to quit. Their rate of recovery is the same as AA. So, the fact that not all AAs want really quit is not a good one when making a comparison. At least in AA, the majority of people have a degree of motivation to quit, and most really want to quit. That is why they are there. The court ordered stuff is a different story.
February 9, 2010 at 2:04 am
I appreciate your candor. If comments like yours were heard by newcomers everywhere instead of the 90-in-90 nobody-gets-here-by-accident sales pitches they get right before the spiritual-not-religious bait-and-switch, AA’s critics would melt away.
February 9, 2010 at 2:11 am
Yeah, Cuda gives AAs a good name. So does Jim.
It kind of pisses me off a little.
February 9, 2010 at 2:28 am
I wouldn’t go that far. I was just commenting on his momentary candor regarding AA’s intentions and attitudes.
February 9, 2010 at 2:26 am
My favorite AA BS line is that the program always works and never fails. Any lack of success lies with the individual and not with the program of AA.
Personally I think the line, “Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed or path”, should be changed to “Rarely have we seen a person succeed who has thoroughly followed our path”.
Bill W summed it up well when he said, “You have no conception these days of how much failure we had. You had to cull over hundreds of these drunks to get a handful to take the bait. Yes, the discouragement’s were very great but some did stay sober and some very tough ones at that.”,
February 9, 2010 at 2:31 am
We did a vid on that very topic several months ago.
February 9, 2010 at 3:43 am
Thanks for posting the video Mike
February 9, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Again I don’t think that AA really has a success or failure rate, which in itself is fine. The problem being of course is that AA and the 12 step movement is institutionalized. The 5% just means that 5% stay.
I had this discussion during a group inventory about AA “early success” people actually believe it was more effective back then, fine, but they have no proof to do so.
February 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Like it or not, there were a couple of reasons for the survey, which started back in 1968.
1. “To enable A.A. to furnish more accurate data about the Fellowship and its effectiveness to the growing number of professional – doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, law enforcement officials and others – who are working today in the field of alcoholism.”
2. “To provide A.A. with more information about itself so that members can work more effectively in helping the many millions of alcoholics who still suffer throughout the world.”
This was back when we had PI (Public Information) committees, but no C.P.C. (Cooperation with the Professional Community) representation.
The C-1 graph data was never intended to be retention percentages in the first place and has been the fodder for reckless antiAAer claims.
Each of the 5 Triennial Surveys is a cross-sectional study – a snapshot at one point in time for 1977, 1980, 1983, 1986, and 1989. Assume that the same number of new people have been attending their first meetings every month. That is how many will be in their first month when the observation is made. Or as the chart says, “% of those coming into A.A. within the first year that have remained the indicated number of months, with the y-axis going from 2 to 22, expressed as a %, in two % increments, then the x-axis going from 1 month to 12 months in 1 month increments and the data depicting the average of the 5 surveys starting at 1 month and going to 12 months…
1 month; 19%
2 months; 13%
3 months; 10%
4 months; 9%
5 months; 8%
6 months; 7%
7 months; 7%
8 months; 6%
9 months; 6%
10 months; 6%
11 months; 6%
12 months; 5%
Rounding error shows 102% or 103%.
The ratio of the second month people in the survey to the first month people is the retention rate between the first and second months. In that same way, it is possible to find the retention between any two sampled months.
In the actual data presented: Month1 = 19% does NOT mean that “81% (i.e. 100% – 19%) dropped out in a month as some sources claim.
Month3 = 10% does NOT mean that “90% (i.e. 100% – 10%) leave within 3 months and Month12 = 5% does NOT mean that “95% (i.e. 100% – 5%) stop active participation in AA inside of a year.
Instead, what the data does show is that for every 100 people surveyed with under a year since first attendance:
19% of that population were in their first month
13% were in their 2nd month
9% were in their 4th month
7% were in their 6th month
6% were in their 8th month
6% were in their 9th month
6% were in their 10th month
6% were in their 11th month
5% were in their 12th month
What is actually shown in the C-1 graph is that 56% of those who stay beyond three months are still active in AA at the end of a year. Other Survey results show even better retention rates after the first year.
You’d have to see the graph for each individual graph for the respective surveys to understand. For example, the one shown is the distribution for all months. The 1st month distribution starts at 100% and goes down to 26% after 12 months. The 2nd month distribution goes from 100% at the 2nd month and goes down to 38%, 3rd month from 100% to 50%, 4th month from 100% to 56%…
The normalizing factor, that which you multiply everything on the distribution by, is 5.25. So Tony J is correct in saying 26.25% after the first year.
Now, two more points the Triennial Survey points out;
As mentioned above,
• 56% of those who stay beyond 3 months are still active in A.A. at the end of a year and other surveys show even better.
• Another important consideration for data interpretation and context is that not everyone who attends A.A. meeting is an alcoholic.
They have graphs in there that show from 77’ to 80’ the percentages of different age groups have come into A.A. Less than 21 years of age, for example rose from 1% in 77’ to 3% for 83’ through 89’, less than 31 years of age rose from about 12% to 22% from 77’ to 89’, 31-50 year olds have been a pretty steady 55% from 77’ to 89’, and 51 years + declined from about 37% in 77’ to about 24% in 89’.
Random suggests imprecision rather than the opposite, but in actuality, when it comes to voting polls, for example, comes to mean “absence of bias). Just because you have a larger sample, doesn’t make it more accurate. That’s what they’ve done with the above survey and it’s good enough for me.
Here’s two statements from A.A.’s Triennial Surveys that show progress in the fellowship;
“About 40% of the members sober less than a year will remain sober and active in the Fellowship another year.”
“Similarly, of the members sober five years, about 90% will remain sober and active in the fellowship another year.”
No prediction is made for those that do NOT remain active.
Length of Sobriety (Data of 1989 survey)
Sobriety Range_________% of Sample
0-1years______________34.5%
1-2 years______________13.3%
2-3 __________________9.8%
3-4___________________7.4%
4-5___________________5.8%
5-10__________________17.2%
10-15_________________6.8%
15-20_________________2.8%
20-25_________________1.0%
25-30_________________0.5%
30-35_________________0.3%
35-40_________________0.1%
40-45_________________0.1%
45+___________________0.0%
No response____________0.4%
Another bit of wonderful data; across the board, from less than a year sober to 45+ years sober, average meetings per week is 3.
I think I’m gonna go on a 36 meetings in 90 days campaign.
Or how about this? 90 meetings in 90 years? You like that?
Oh look! Attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings may reduce depression symptoms (http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/01/28/attendance.alcoholics.anonymous.meetings.may.reduce.depression.symptoms)
Look! There goes a fucking rabbit. Depression for who? The spouse? Fuckin’ dicknose fucks.
__________________________________________-
Ok. Now that the above concern is out of the way, I’d like to delve into blame guy’s claim of a falling fellowship in terms of numbers.
First of all, let’s look at what the NIAAA’s (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) NESARC survey, (National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions) says about the hard drinker vs. what some of us A.A. types like to call the real alcoholic.
Just for shits and giggles, let’s call the hard drinker “alcohol abuse” and the real alcoholic “alcohol dependence”.
It’s fair to assume that for every alcoholic, there’s about 1 or about 0.7 or so hard drinkers… from just looking ahead and skipping a little algebra.
The NIAAA says “the number of American adults who abuse alcohol or are alcohol dependent rose from 13.8 million in 1991-1992 to 17.6 million in 2001-2002 (i.e. 8.5% of the population 18 years and older or about 1 in every 12 adults).”
A June 10, 2004 National Institutes for Health (NIH) News Release summarized the NESARC survey data as;
• 1991-1992; alcohol abuse; 5.6 million, alcohol dependence; 8.2 million, total; 13.8 million.
• 2001-2002; alcohol abuse 9.7 million, alcohol dependence; 7.9 million, total; 17.6 million.
“In 2002, global A.A. membership was around 2.1 million (1.2 million in the US).”
“These membership numbers are likely understated; even so, it is a substantial quantitative indicator of A.A. success.”
So… the way I see it, we’re (A.A.) helping 1 of every 7 alcoholics or about 14.3% of them.
So based on that, Blame, what were you saying?
February 9, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I said that of all persons who attend their first AA meeting, only 5% will still be attending one year later. Really tried, real alcoholics, genuine desire, etc, are all subjective, unmeasurable dodges. Your 26% annual retention rate is simply wrong, no matter how much of the revisionist denial you cut and paste. The 2002 membership numbers you cited are virtually identical to those of 1992. Ten years, no growth, in spite of a significant rise in the total number of potential indoctrinees. How can this be, with retention anything close to what you are claiming?
February 9, 2010 at 10:30 pm
That is not a red herring. A placebo effect is very important in medical research. It is always factored out when comparing effectiveness. Of course, AA is not medical treatment and should be abandoned as a treatment modality. AA is a religion pure and simple.
February 9, 2010 at 11:51 pm
“Another little factoid. Almost all forms of treatment have a placebo effect of 30%, this can be for a drug, a medical intervention or whatever. ”
So you’re saying that if we gave 100 cancer patients sugar pills, 30 of them would be cured because of the ‘placebo’ effect ?
Why don’t you sell your knowledge to the insurance companies. We’re in the middle of a health care crisis you know. Why treat patients with expensive drugs when a sugar cube will do.
February 10, 2010 at 12:02 am
The faith-healing Minnesota-modeled treatment centers give alcoholics and addicts 12-step indoctrination, then bill them thousands of dollars, all for single-digit long-term abstinence rates. No wonder we are in the middle of a health care crisis, spending billions each year on ineffective, sometimes-dangerous 12-step Kool-ade.
February 10, 2010 at 12:54 am
You know, Mike… I gotta agree with that. The client should pocket the $13,000+ dollars and just go to A.A. and drop a buck in the basket. Skip the treatment center that supposedly does “A.A. oriented treatment”.
Or at very least, separate the alcohol abusers… aka hard drinkers from the alcohol dependent… aka real alcoholics.
February 10, 2010 at 2:26 am
I didn’t say they would be cured, but they would have a response to the medication or treatment. People are prescribed sugar pills all the time FYI. With AA there is a nocebo effect where people believe bad things are going to happen to them and they do. It is the concept of powerlessness.-the most idiotic thing about AA
February 10, 2010 at 2:42 am
Why don’t you make up your mind. If people respond to the placebo it’s not idiotic to use it.
As far as bad things happening to people in AA because AA has told them bad things will happen, what you are saying is that alcohol abuse doesn’t cause problems, AA does. So if we just tell everyone that drinking is harmless, no one will have any ill effects from it. Right ?
You really are a genius. You’ve found the cure for alcoholism. Wow. I’m impressed.
How about smoking ? Shouldn’t we get all those anti-smoking commercials off the air too ? People are dying from lung cancer because of the nocebo effect of the commercials. We need to tell them that smoking is actually good for them so they’ll live longer, healthier lives.
Why are you hiding on the internet. Get out and sell a few books and make some money for yourself. You owe it to the people.
February 10, 2010 at 3:02 am
Didn’t I just say that people are prescribed sugar pills all the time? Tony, there is a difference between placebo and nocebo. E.M. Jellinek came up with the idea of placebo-the best thing he ever did!
February 10, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Why are you repeating yourself instead of answering my question ?
The question is, does alcohol abuse cause health and social problems or does it not.
You say it doesn’t. That the only problems caused by alcohol abuse are really caused by the nocebo because people are told they are powerless in AA.
But that begs the question, why did the alcohol abuser end up in AA in the first place ? If they have control over alcohol consumption and it’s effects, why did they reach out for help or why were they in legal trouble in the first place ?
February 11, 2010 at 1:48 am
I did not say that alcohol dooesn’t cause social problems and you never asked about it. I am repeating myself because you repeated what I just said and turned it around for whatever reason I don’t know. Not only are you deficient in statistics but also verbal reasoning and debate.
February 11, 2010 at 4:01 am
How can I be deficient in statistics when I understand the numbers we’re discussing and you don’t.
Oh well, you can’t fix stupid can you ?
February 11, 2010 at 4:41 am
Tony:
“But that begs the question, why did the alcohol abuser end up in AA in the first place ? If they have control over alcohol consumption and its effects, why did they reach out for help or why were they in legal trouble in the first place ?”
Tony, these people must have been on their way to coming to the realization “Just say no” and some A.A. bastard came and brainwashed them into a meeting.
Then once in the meeting, the thumpers yell horid tales of vociferous impending danger to this prospect, then they go out into society and it all comes to fruition… due to the “Nocebo” effect.
So the placebo is to tell the prospects that drinking is in fact harmless and good for you, good for me, mighty good, mmm good, oorah! So a good A.A.er will take his/her prospect out drinking and turn em’ loose.
Yeah. I think we should send this Nocebo technique to AAWS for incorporation into the next edition.
February 11, 2010 at 5:48 am
You Should. You would be an AA hero! Hell you could even write a book called Nocebos Anonymous and make lots of $$$$
February 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I don’t know Dawg.
They don’t seem to talk about their experience with alcohol. I have no reason to think any of them even drank.
They might just be friends all locked up in the same spin-bin passing time by letting their various personalities express themselves on this blog.
February 11, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Tony, do you actually believe that any one here has any interest in what you think?
February 11, 2010 at 4:31 pm
cannae1, on February 11th, 2010 at 4:14 am Said:
mcgowdog, do you actually think that I care?
Are you really that stupid?
Reply
Ben Franklin, on February 11th, 2010 at 5:50 am Said:
Yes he is.
Reply
cannae1, on February 11th, 2010 at 11:59 am Said:
I agree.
Reply
BROCK!!!!!! Polly want a cracker. BROCK!
cannae? Canary?
Canary want a cracker?
“It typically feeds in flocks, foraging on the ground or amongst low vegetation. It mainly feeds on seeds such as those of weeds, grasses and figs. It also feeds on other plant material and small insects”-Wiki
Canary be a ground feeder. Here… have some crumbs… … … BROCK!!!!!!!!!
February 11, 2010 at 4:56 am
All I can say is reading this shit gives me a fucking headache.
Who fucking cares?
My retention rate is 100%
Good night.
February 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm
LOL !!
Don’t be so selfish Jim.
If you’re going to fit in on this blog you have to stop worrying about yourself and mind everyone elses business.
Anyway, sleep tight.