Talk:Twelve-step program/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I am

Studies Only Count Showing Up for Groups-- They Don't Count Serious Attempts To Work The Steps On A Daily Basis

I am so glad the section below this one was was finally removed. These studies fail to measure the most important variable in 12 Step recovery-- which is whether someone is willing to work the 12 Steps (versus wether they have just attended groups). The steps work best for those who want to work them enough to apply them in their daily lives. Merely sitting in a group doesn't constitute such an attempt-- and these studies only tend to count showing up in groups, not real attempts to work the Steps.

Bill Wilson himself wrote that he supported developing more ways in addition to the 12 Steps to help the addicted person. He knew the Steps would not help everyone. But he also knew that the steps had helped millions.

Sean7phil 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article:

The data listed above are just a small sample of a very large body of empirical evidence indicating that AA is no better than doing nothing at all. The few studies that have shown any benefit to AA attendance are notable for their methodological flaws and are virtually worthless (Le et al. p. 603).

The chief reason for AA’s dismal record is obvious to the Atheist. Any “treatment” predicated on belief in an imaginary despot-in-the-sky must fail. We might as well turn our lives over to the Energizer Bunny. Piety Gets You Sobriety?

"Engergizer Bunny" part is a bit funny but not encyclopedic. The rant about AA might be OK to have in the AA article if it were qualified and NPOVed. There is no reason to have either statement in this article. --maveric149

)

Ignoring the quip about the Energizer Bunny, it remains factual that 12-step programs don't have empirical evidence to back up their claims of high success rates. What research has been done has found them at best equal to quitting solo. These organizations have also proven hostile to research into their success rates.

AA and Al-Anon, etc., are not treatment programs, they are fellowships. They are about experience. People talking about AA as worthless are referring to statistical outcomes for "curing" the disease of attachment and addiction. How about some statistical reports on actual substance dependency treatment programs (e.g., medical) please? Besides, my group and its literature does not exclude aetheism. A power greater than yourself begins at the edge of your arrogant ego. The antique language of the 12-steps is preserved like the 11th century Lojong Slogans of Tibet, but both are still alive to interpretation and individual experience. Take what you like, leave the rest.

Alcholics anoymous bases their percentages from the first 100 people who got sober.

Most of whom went back on the piss anyway. Why do you think all but one of the back-of-the-book stories from the first edition were changed in later editions?

Just attending a 12 step program is not enough, you must work the 12 steps and live them.

I removed the baffling parts about Neo-Pagans. This isn't an article on the reactions of all religions to 12-Steps.

Narconon

One organization which is often confused with an "Anonymous" 12-step program, due to the intentional similarity of its name -- but is not one -- is Narconon?. Narconon isn't [Narcotics Anonymous]?; it is rather a branch (or "mission") of the Church of Scientology.

Can someone explain how Narconon differs from 12-steps? It doesn't seem like being a branch of the CoS would make much of a difference. -- Ark

Simple, Ark -- Narconon doesn't use the 12 Steps; it uses Scientology methods. Some of these include: the Purification Rundown, a course of vitamin overdoses and various other "treatments" believed to purify the body of toxins; the Communications Course TRs, a series of drills such as sitting impassively, avoiding laughter while a coach reads nonsense sentences, answering simple questions, and so forth; and the Hubbard Study Tech. None of these techniques are used by non-Scientology "self-help groups", including 12-step groups. --Fubar Obfusco

You may be thinking of Narcotics Anonymous, or NA, which *does* use the 12 steps of alcoholics anonymous 63.26.97.90 12:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Ned F.

BTW, I've overhauled the Narconon page with some more description of what they're about. The previous version was the "party line" from the organization itself, rather than an encyclopedist's description. It still needs work, if you're interested in the research -- I left several links on both sides. --Fubar Obfusco

Naive little ol' me. I had actually expected that here in Wikipedia, when someone posted a page on something, they would actually know what they were talking about. <sigh> So much for expectations.

A wise person once noted that everyone has the right to be wrong, and this page proves it. The Author has gone out of the way to post almost as much common misconception as opinion and posting it as fact.

I'm not going to waste time and space posting my opinion, based on my own personal experience gleened over several long, struggling years in a variety of venues. Suffice it to say that This Editor has done his homework.

NOTE: Al-Anon is a program started by Lois Wilson, wife of AA Co-Founder Bill Wilson, for the purpose of giving help and support to family members of alcoholics. It is a program based on the 12-Steps of AA. Their focus is somewhat centered in chapters 8) To Wives, and 9)The Family Afterwards of the book Alcoholics Anonymous. NarAnon is to Narcotics Anonymous as Al-Anon is to Alcoholics Anonymous. -- Davjohn

Big Book

Added reference to "Big Book" and a paragraph on different ways of interpreting program literature. morimom

Why is the narcon description even included in a description of the Twelve steps? It has no bearing on the subject.

---

It seems fitting to delete extraneous sections or relocate them to separate article(s); AA pioneered a twelve-step program published in the book Alcoholics Anonymous the Story of How Many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered From Alcoholism.Others have adopted it. Perhaps the easiest and most generic book on the subject is <Twelve Steps To Happiness a Hazelden book authored by Joe Klaas.

Is it possible the article improves if sections on Meeting Process, the squabble regarded court-mandated attendance at AA meetings and the unique customs of some groups or locales are deleted? The Twelve Traditions (and the Twelve Concepts) of AA probably belong in the article on Alcoholics Anonymous, as they are not an integral part of the twelve step program.

AA's program of recovery aims to produce what Dr. Wm. D. Silkworth described as a 'psychic change' in his Doctor's Opinion published in the front material of AA's Big Book.

The "psychic change" is clarified on p 27 where Dr. Jung said "exceptions to cases such as yours have been occurring since early times. Here and there, once in a while, alcoholics have had what are called vital spiritual experiences. To me these occurrences are phenomena. They appear to be in the nature of huge emotional displacements and rearrangements. Ideas, emotions, and attitudes which were once the guiding forces of the lives of these men are suddenly cast to one side and a completely new set of conceptions and motives begin to dominate them. In fact, I have been trying to produce some such emotional rearrangement within you. With many individuals the methods which I employed are successful, but I have never been successful with an alcoholic of your description."

On p. 569, Appendix II clarifies the expected results that a "spiritual awakening" or a sudden and more rapid "spiritual experience" produce a "personality change sufficient to bring about recovery from alcoholism" and it makes the important point that the poorly-understood phenomena has manifested itself among us in many different ways."

This latter point is referenced on p. 28; "The distinguished American psychologist, William James, in his book "Varieties of Religious Experience," indicates a multitude of ways in which men have discovered God. We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one way by which faith can be acquired."

The issue of religion is addressed in the next paragraph: "We think it no concern of ours what religious bodies our members identify themselves with as individuals. This should be an entirely personal affair which each one decides for himself in the light of past associations, or his present choice. Not all of us join religious bodies, but most of us favor such memberships."

Good dictionaries show the words "spiritual" and "religious" are not synonymous. Spiritual people are not necessarily religious and religious people may emphasize religion, not spirituality. This imbroglio produces similar confusion regarding the words sensual and sexual. An expert massage has no sexual component, but it is extraordinarily sensual.

//Don K. 216.67.38.28 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Capitalization of Bible

It's not common for Bible to be uncapitalized. Should this be changed?

Jdavidb 17:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"He established the tradition within the "Anonymous" 12-step programs of using only his first name." Who exactly was this, Bill or Bob? --Fermatprime 14:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Add to category mental health?

I am currently trying to populate category:mental health. I thought I would canvas opinion on whether the Twelve-step programme as a mental health promoting model would be seen as appropriate for addition to the category. --Vincej 13:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly agree. DirkK 20:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added category: twelve-step program to category:mental health.--Vincej 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

AA is not a religious program

I'm really sick of hearing all of these people critisizing Alcoholics Anonymous. I am a member of AA and I am a far cry from a christion organization. I have never even once felt pressured into believing anything in particular about God and have never once had anyone try to push their concept of God onto me. It is true that the word God can be found many times in the Big Book. The word God to me is inclusive and doesn't refer to any particular diety. I believe this was what Bill Wilson intended. It whould be remembered that there is not a single reference to Jesus in all of AA literature as far as I'm aware. I was a staunch atheist before comming to the program. Just because you believe in God does not make you a christion any more than drinking makes you an alcoholics. I don't have the luxury as some of you do of not believing in anything. Alcoholism is a LIFE OF DEATH SITUATION. You don't have to believe in ANYTHING in this program if you don't want to. Yes, many more people have tried this program than have succeeded in staying sober. But how many people have just stopped drinking and remained miserable. Drinking is not the main problem. It's the dysfunctional thinking that leads to drinking that is the main problem for alcoholics and is the main focus of Alcoholics Anonymous. This, I feel is something that many people outside the program misunderstand.

Thanks for your opinion. I think that most people would consider belief in a deity to be a "religious belief" -- regardless of whether that deity is the Christian God, or a Deist God, or any other sort of god. Since the Twelve Steps make explicit literal reference to belief and dependence upon God, I don't see how we could be consistent if we said that AA was entirely non-religious.

The main reason that this was mentioned in the article at all has to do with the First Amendment issues around the U.S. courts or prisons requiring inmates to attend AA. Under the Constitution, no U.S. government agency has the right to compel someone to express a religious belief. (This is why public-school studens can't be punished for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance.) So insofar as AA involves a belief in a deity, U.S. courts can't require inmates or probationers to participate. This is a legal issue that has been raised and answered in the courts -- the Supreme Court let stand the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation to this effect.

Since then, the religion issue has also been raised as a contrast between AA and other models such as Rational Recovery. This seems to be a worthwhile contrast to make. --FOo 18:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure that Rational Recovery is totally non-religious either. I've explored their website (linked to the Wikipedia article), and they seem to be selling themselves hard to conservatives, trying to convince them that they have the "old fashioned" approach (willpower) to sobriety, as contrasted to AA, which they make out to be some kind of modernist/liberal abdomination; and saying it is "just a crutch; replacing one addiction with another" (in so many words). At any rate, I guess the real points are: (1) is it possible to do AA or Rational Recovery without having any religious/spiritual beliefs?, and (2) is it ethical, or constitutional, for any court to ever require anyone to get indoctrinating-type therapy (or fellowship) of any type? For what it's worth, I'm extremely liberal (definitely not theistic), and I don't have any problem with AA per say, but I don't think anyone should be forced to go to meetings, by a judge, court, P.O. or anyone. Shanoman 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be mainly a semantic debate. The United States forces all children to pledge allegiance to "one nation under God", invokes God on all its currency, begins its legislative sessions with prayers, etc. Does that mean that the US government is religious? Probably, but perhaps no more so than AA is, with it's "Higher Power" and "God, as we understood Him". Is AA "religious"? I'd say so, but I think it's a matter of degree; it seems to be less religious than a church or sect, or maybe a public school in Kansas, but probably more so than RR.

I know that AA members like to say that it's "spiritual, not religious", but this is a distinction which makes no difference for a lot of people. Spirituality is widely considered a religious concept, no matter how few the number of spirits or how vaguely defined. Also, although AA is not affiliated with any particular religious doctrine or sect, in some groups, especially in the Bible Belt, some AA members exert a strong Christian influence, often intimidating those who do not believe likewise.

Since AA, itself, says that it has no monopoly on treatment for the alcoholic, its members have no need to be opposed to more secular alternatives. If courts and other government agencies allow individuals to choose their treatment, then I don't think that there would be any problem with AA being one of the possible choices. --Nike 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you might want to review a few facts before coming to a conclusion on the relevance of religion to this article.

The U.S. certainly does not "force all children to pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God'". See our article on the Pledge of Allegiance -- requiring the Pledge was ruled unconstitutional in the 1940s thanks to lawsuits brought by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religious beliefs preclude swearing allegiance to a government. Reciting the Pledge is a common practice in U.S. schools, but it is unlawful for a public school to make it mandatory.

Likewise, at issue in Warner v. Orange County was whether a drunk driver could be required by the state, as part of a probation sentence, to attend AA. As the court put it: "Warner claimed that a probation condition imposed on him as part of a criminal sentence, which required him to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous ("A.A."), forced him to participate in religious activity in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause [...]." [1]

The claim that AA is "non-sectarian" was explicitly dismissed by the court: "The County argues further that the non-sectarian nature of the A.A. experience immunizes its use of religious symbolism and practices from Establishment Clause scrutiny. The argument is at the very least factually misleading, for the evidence showed that every meeting included at least one explicitly Christian prayer. Furthermore, the claim that non-sectarian religious exercise falls outside the First Amendment's scrutiny has been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court."

Why does this matter? Why does it need to be described in an encyclopedia article? Well, the religious character of AA has been central in a court case which forbade government agencies in the U.S. from imposing AA attendance as a condition of probation. That's a pretty significant fact. --FOo 03:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Did I say that AA was not religious? Or that it did not matter? No. Of course it is. My point was that there is no need for AA members to deny it. If they can admit to being "spiritual", then they should admit to being "religious", if the definition of "religious" includes sprituality, and does not require specific beliefs. Unitarianism is considered a religion, after all. I know that they don't want to turn away the non-religious, but in that case they should just drop the religious baggage, instead of insisting that they can act religious without being religious. And they can still accept people from the courts, if the courts provide other options, which should not be a problem, since their own Big Book says that they have no monopoly. To continue to insist that they are not religious, at the same time that they are using the Lord's Prayer and such, simply makes them look delusional or dishonest, and therefore harms the reputation of AA.

As for the Pledge, I was drawing a comparison, which is still valid. AA members are not forced to pray or even to express a belief in God. Just like in school, they can be the ostracized weirdo who refuses participate. I went to public shool, so I know what it was like. Not mandatory? No, they don't force you to say it, but you are forced to sit through it, even if you keep your mouth shut, and face peer pressure from the group. Just like in AA. --Nike 20:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

AA is NOT a religion, period. I am a religious person, a clergymember, in fact. I am also very familiar with AA, having worked as a substance abuse counselor and psychiatric technician, although I am not myself an alcoholic. In my role as a clergymember, I focus on both beliefs and behavior. When working with people who are alcoholics or addicts in a treatment context, I focus only on behavior, on action. IOW, while it is strongly suggested to AA or NA members that they pray, it is not REQUIRED for membership (In AA, for example, "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking") and one does not necesarily have to believe in any god in order to engage in this behavior, or any other such practice. As has been noted, one's "Higher Power" can be the group, the program ("Good Orderly Direction") or whatever inspires one to stay clean and sober one day at a time. As heard at meetings, many members of AA and/or NA have said, "I don't have any spiritual beliefs, but I have a spiritual practice."

Obviously, this begs some questions, such as, "What exactly is 'spirituality' anyway?" The answer to that question, whether from a religious or a 12-Step perspective, has to do with RELATIONSHIPS. IOW, spirituality is concerned with how one relates to oneself, others, the universe as a whole and any deity that one may believe in. Obviously, alcoholism or other addictions significantly screw up these relationships. The 12 Steps are designed such that the victims of such diseases may heal these relationships by working the program. Another question, perhaps more basic, has to do with the idea of engaging in prayer (or some forms of meditation) absent a belief in a deity. Well, from a non-religious perspective, perhaps such prayer is a form of "self talk"; perhaps I am simply addressing a part of myself not ordinarily accessible to conventional consciousness, perhaps a part of me which partakes in what Jung called "the collective unconscious," if such exists. In any event, I suspect the vast majority of AA and NA members who have achieved significant time clean and sober (a year or more, perhaps) would state that prayer has played a significant part in that process, regardless of belief, and that would include all such members who are atheists or agnostics. In sum, the issue is behavior, not belief, and the latter is what is a specifically religious issue.--Midnite Critic 05:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, never called AA "a religion". I merely said that it is "religious". That is, it has some obvious religious characteristics, but I would agree with you that it does not qualify as a full-fledged religion. The AA program is the 12 Steps, which refer repeatedly to God, so the AA program is to some extent religious.

I am an AA member, have been for many years, and I don't don't have a problem with AA being called "religious", even though I am personally not very religious. You might call me "agnostic" or "atheist", and I have read quite a bit of Jung. I can tolerate "God" on my money and in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in AA. I don't see the need to deny it. If AA wants to be completely non-religious, it should remove the word "God" and use secular terms. And stop using the Lord's Prayer, which at least NA has done. --Nike 06:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As a longtime member of AA, you know that the emphasis in the 12-Step programs is on ACTION, not belief. Besides the obvious non-sectarian nature of the 12-Step programs, this quality, more than anything else, separates them from religions, which, almost by definition, are "belief systems." Further, I would argue that while these programs indeed are "spiritual," (see above), because of this lack of a religious belief system they are not religious. As far as the "Our Father" goes, while it is Christian in origin, it contains nothing that is specifically Christian in content. Further, as you know, no one is required to participate in reciting the prayer when it is used at AA meetings (or the "Serenity Prayer" for that matter). It is also important to note that a primary reason to stress the non-sectarian/non-religious nature of AA, for example, is so that it remains welcoming to ANY "alcoholic who still suffers" regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. Finally, I would suggest you Google "atheistic spirituality". You'll get some interesting hits. --Midnite Critic 06:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, AA is not "atheistic". The 12 Steps and AA literature make frequent references to God. Secondly, "belief" is the 2nd Step. Now, I would not argue with you that AA isn't "non-sectarian", because it is not affiliated with any specific sect or denomination, but I guess some judge figured that it is sectarian because most groups recite the LP, which is Christian, even though it's not specific to a particular branch of Christianity. Whatever. All I am saying is that AA has some religious aspects. I am not saying that "AA is a religion", or even that it is sectarian (aside from being generally monotheistic with heavy Christian influences). The point is, that no matter how stenuously and repeatedly AA members insist that AA is not religious at all, others are not going to buy it, so why bother? Distinguishing between "religious" and "spiritual" doesn't work when talking to people who don't distinguish between the two. Believe me, I gave up wasting my time with that decades ago. What it really boils down to is semantics, and you cannot win a semantic debate because it's about definitions, and theirs is different from yours. So fine, let's just concede that, by the definition of most, AA has religious aspects (just like the US government does) and move on to more important issues. Whether others wish to label AA as "religious" or not, AA doesn't need to defend itself against that. Hell, you don't have to tell me about "atheistic spirituality"; I was posting about that on BBSs back in the 80s.

As for "welcoming to ANY 'alcoholic who still suffers' regardless of religious belief or lack thereof", that depends less upon what others say about AA, and more upon what AA members, AA groups and the AA service structure does. AA gives every newcomer a heavy dose of God when s/he walks in the door, with the Lord's Prayer thrown on top, amen! Then when AA members say, "AA is not religious", they sound crazy, stupid or just disingenuous. Far better to simply cop to it, say that, yes, there are some religious aspects to AA, but one does not need to become religious to benefit from it. But that's hard to do when there are many AA members and groups saying that you can't stay sober unless you believe in and turn your life over to God. Sure, I can view that simply as a metaphor, but most mean it literally. --Nike 05:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The main reason I feel AA is not a religious program is that when I hear most people speaking of religion and AA I believe what they really mean is Christianity and AA. Yes, there is a lot of talk about God in AA. It is in fact the keystone of the entire program. I can't speak for anybody who may have had an adverse experience at an AA meeting but I, myself have never had anyone at a meeting try to force their conception of God onto me. The "Big Book" does make several allusion to christianity but I think the main reason for this is that Bill Wilson wasn't familier with many other religions. He himself says he was always suspicious of religion. He just drew on what he knew. I should also say that I am not a Christian. I don't think this makes me an odball at AA meetings in any way. The majority of my friends in AA probably are Christians just as the majority of most Americans are, but I don't really know for sure since I don't hear people sitting around AA meetings talking about Jesus dying on a cross for our sins. That is not what AA is about at all. Alcoholics Anonymous is probably the most religiously tolerant organization I have ever been involved in. We speak of God, yes. As I said earlier "God" is a rather generic term. Nobody in AA is going to tell you what God is, because to most people in AA God means something different to each one. Is it Jesus, Allah, Bramman, Budha, the Tao? The answer is that it's all of these and none. It's something one has to figure out for oneself. Hell, make up your own conception of God. That's what Bill Wilson did. The point is, we must get out of our Egos, quit feeding our insatiable desires, quit being a slave to our selfish passions, and get out of ourselves. Whether you agree with it or not, it has definately worked for me. Rather than make me guilt-riden, miserable, and weak, it has actually removed much of my guilt, made me happy and strong.

I'm glad that AA has worked for you, but in general there is plenty of criticism of AA that is perfectly valid and deserves to be included here, such as the "13th step" and the like. Also more of the history of AA showing how, like it or not, it comes from a religious/Christian background. There is quite a bit of data and analysis suggesting it is more cult like than you think. --Jakichan

The "spiritual" versus "religious" denial has been challenged in court on several occassions. In every case the court rules AA was in fact religious and the "spiritual and not religious" denial was deemed meaningless (and misleading). Several court cases saying AA is in fact religious is evidence. A court ruling (and in this case, several court rulings) is NOT POV or bias, it is evidence and things that can be evidenced belong in the article. Mr Christopher 00:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Griffin vs. Coughlin", New York Court of Appeals, 1996 [2]: "… adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization." --88.73.104.137 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I don't think this article has a neutral point of view - it seems to be critical of 12 steps programs instead of presenting information in an unbiased way and allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions. This one section in particular, "A.A. is not a religious program", paints the false impression that A.A. is just a watered down form of Christianity and anyone who joins a 12 step program must rigidly adhere to these Christian tenets. As a Pagan with 23 yrs. sobriety in a 12 step program, I can assure you this is not the case. FilmGal 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You assurances are noted but you'd do well to understand the goals and policies of Wikipedia (hint - promoting AA in a light AA members would like best is not one of them). Original research (such going to a meeting and reporting how AA works based on that meeting attendance) is not allowed in a Wiki article. What is expected is for editors to support what they write in the article with evidence.

Most ALL AA members deny AA is religious and cling to the meaningless thought stopping cliche' "spiritual and not religious". Well those denials are noted but they conflict with reality. Have you even read the rulings of the various court cases where the religiosity of AA was the basis of a lawsuit?

It is not appropriate for Wiki to decide whether AA is religious but instead the editors should provide evidence and the reader can make their own conclusion. Therefore, tt is MOST appropriate to include the religious versus spiritual controvery in this article as long as it is supported with evidence (and not original research i.e. "I am a member of AA and it aint so!"). Things like court case rulings are evidence. Mr Christopher 13:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the types of comments I'm referring to. For example, "cling to the meaningless and stopping cliche", "those denials", "I am a member of AA and it ain't so!", etc. are hardly neutral statements. Also, are other articles subjected to long discussions over the pertinence of court rulings? FilmGal 06:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the religiosity of AA is debated is a fact and belongs in the article. The fact that numerous courts have ruled on the subject are relevant. Thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people have been sentenced to AA by the courts and a few of those sentences have been challenged. Most courts no longer sentence one to AA meeting or they give the convicted a choice of AA and other programs to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. Yes the debate over the religiosity and ensuing court cases are relevant.

And your denial that AA is religious is noted, probably most AA members deny AA is religious so it is nothing we have not heard before. But that does not make AA non-religious. The biggest objection newcomers have to AA is the religiosity. Good grief how many steps mention god and higher powers? Most AA meeting close with the serenity prayer or lords prayer? But I will agree with you that AA members are taught not to view AA as religious and instead substitute "spiritual" instead. The article should reflect the religiosity debate and those comments should be well supported.

AA is not a religious program. It IS a spiritual one. I was reading an organizational behavior textbook recently which defines spirituality as, "The recognition that people have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by [a discipline] that takes place within the context of community." That is what AA is. I've seen people use the AA group itself as thier "Higher Power" to get sober. Some use their wives or kids or family as their "Higher Power" to motivate them to stay sober. Some people even uses their own "aided will" as a way of getting sober. At least one person I know with many years sobriety claims to have no believe in any higher power what-so-ever, uses his own "unaided will" to stay sober and comes to AA because he has friends there. All methods that help a person stay away from drinking are acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.50.252 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

More importanlty what sentence in the article do you find POV and how would you rewrite it? Mr Christopher 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of a twelve-step program that is not AA, and I have 18 years of recovery and continuous abstinence. I think the first major problem with this article on Twelve-step Program is to continue to refer to AA as a component of the definition of such program. Yes the twelve steps were first drafted and used by AA. It is fine to cite the origin and the history. However, when you say "twelve-step program" nowadays, you are referring to a set of tools that goes far beyond AA. If AA were cited and then the article moved on from there, it would allow for a much clearer and more useful explanation of the topic (which is NOT AA, by the way.) However the author continues to cite AA as the definitive twelve-step program. I would argue that it may be the oldest but hardly the definitive one nowadays. Another odd thing is that a link to the actual twelve steps is given and it is an AA website. There are several other twelve-step program sites which post the twelve steps. Why not give a few of them or all of them? Why not post the twelve steps in the article? Being a participant in a twelve-step fellowship, I can say that in my view folks who say "spiritual, not religious" are making a distinction between the two by way of the definition or lack of definition of the word "god" or "higher power". They are under the impression that 'religious' means a goup having a specific definition of god, as Baptists or Hasidic Jews do, as opposed to 'spiritual' which means a group believing in a god or higher power but not a specific one, and not necessarily believing in only one or any set number of gods. I looked up the definitions of religious and spiritual in the online Yahoo Dictionary and found that among the numbered definitions of the two adjectives, one is common to both: the belief in God. I find it interesting that God is capitalized in the definition for both. I personally don't capitalize god when referring to my personal source of spiritual communion, however I do call it 'god' because it's simpler than saying 'sublime, metanatural power which is beyond my capacity to fathom.' I haven't yet looked up the word 'God' in the same dictionary and I wonder if there is a definition for 'God' and another for 'god'. After looking up the definitions of those two words I would have to agree that many twelve-step programs could be called 'religious'. However, if I were to state that, I would be beholden to cite the source of my decision, wouldn't I? (As I have done.) If I cite the source then folks who read this can make up their own mind about the validity of my argument. Personally, my decision about the religiosity of anything is not swayed by whatever the US Courts say. Court rulings are not always the best arbiters of what is true or not true. Recently, convicts have been released after years in prison after further evidence has pointed to their innocence. (Once upon a time, the courts thought women should not vote and blacks should not enjoy the same social freedoms as whites.) I do think it's okay to cite court rulings, however court rulings do not equal "truth". For instance, my twelve-step fellowship does NOT say any Christian prayers at any time during any meeting. Anecdotally, I personally know more non-Christians in the fellowship than I do Christians. So who defines 'God'? That seems to be the real item of debate here. I think that courts should not send people to twelve-step programs. One of the Twelve Traditions, which is a set of policies by which most twelve-step groups abide, notes that a twelve-step program is a program of attraction rather than promotion. I construe this statement to mean, among other things, that a twelve-step program is a program for people who want it, not people who need it. I "needed" a twelve-step program long before I finally wanted it and got and stayed clean. Twelve-step programs may have a low success rate, but what is success? Staying abstinent? For how long? And then what? Not drinking but continuing to beat one's spouse or embezzle money? There are so many concepts floating around this article that have yet to be succinctly defined. It is difficult to argue or debate concepts that are vague to begin with.

over complicating

It's amazing to see so many people over complicating something as simple as the 12 step program. They coined the term "keep it simple" for this very reason. Too often people try to over analize the simplest things and before you know it their way out in left field. Larquitte 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The 12 steps are a religion and I and many others do not belive in that religion. An encyclopedia should be truthful and calling 12-steps a religion in itself is truthful!

As I mentioned above Wiki should not take a stand on this issue and should instead focus on building an article that is well supported. That is Wiki policy Mr Christopher 13:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

M Christopher ridiculously claims the high ground of Wikipidia as not being a place to represent the 12 Steps as A.A. would like to have them represented. All while using the article to represent the 12 Steps in the way HE would like to represent them. That is intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

71.208.211.146 17:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

.

Merge "Acting Out"

A merge tag has been sat on Acting out for a few weeks now, proposing a merger with this article. No mergefrom tag was added here though, and the proposal hasn't received any comments. I don't know the subject so don't have an opinion, I am simply trying to stimulate debate so the proposal can be closed one way or the other. Kcordina 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I deleted the tag. The article Acting out is just one sentence "long". There's nothing to merge. :-) --Arne Neem 09:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== This Wikipedia article on 12 Step Programs is An Opinion Piece and is Not An Encyclopedic Description-- Very Innapropriate for an Online Encyclopedia.

Feedback-- this is an overly harsh and overly poltically-correct interpretation of the 12 Steps.

This Wikipedia article is not a description of the 12 Steps, it is a critique of the 12 steps.

Thus it far oversteps the stated mission of wikipedia as being an online encyclopedia and instead reads like a thesis paper attacking the 12 steps. Thesis papers by definition do not describe, they take positions, they take sides.

That would be fine for a thesis paper but has nothing to do with describing something in an encyclopedic sense.

This article is all opinion from start to finish. It argues about the effectiveness of the 12 steps and it argues other issues related to the 12 steps from start to finish. All it does is promote the authors opinions rather than simply describing what 12 step programs are. Very politically motivated and very manipulative!

If opinion is all that Wikipedia wants-- here are some of my opinions on the subject of the 12 steps--

Although I too am critical of 12 Step programs and aware of their flaws, I nevertheless balance that criticism with appreciation that 12 Step Programs saved my life.

Wikipedia should get politics out of the process here and find a more neutral writer or editor-- this writer clearly has political biases that saturate the writing here with the political agenda of wanting to oppose or overly-criticise A.A. and other 12 Step Programs because of the higher power concept.

An appropriate wikipedia writer (and article) for this subject would be descriptive rather than evaluative. Describing rather than evaluating the 12 steps and 12 step programs.

But since the main article is heavily laced with opinion, here are some more opinions from me--

I do agree with one main thrust of the writers argument however-- that A.A. (and the 12 Steps in general) are not the only way to get better.

Additionally I agree that Court-mandated attendence at 12 Step meetings forces spirituality on those who may not want it or may not be predisposed to benefiting from it. Courts and also State and Federal governments have no place getting involved in 12 Step programs in this way and participation should never be forced on anyone.

It should however be noted that 12 Step programs have a stated (and written) policy of "attraction not promotion". So don't blame 12 Step programs for what the courts are doing.

Implying that Bill Wilson and Bob Smith were allegedly struck sober by their own personal spiritual experiences crosses an editorial line here and shows the writer to have an awful lot of bias.

It would be fine to say that Bill Wilson and Doctor Bob 'reported' or 'related' that they had spiritual experiences which lifted their desire to drink--

But instead this Wikipedia article snidely describes their experiences as "unusual cures".

Most telling is the fact that the writer attacks the A.A./12 Step seperation of the concept of religion from the concept of spirituality-- and essentially claims that all spirituality is religious--

"The 'spirituality' idea was originally defined by Wilson as reliance on the Creator — truly a religious idea."

In fact belief in some kind of God is a different matter than defining that God or codifying the dictates of that God. One need go no further than a dictionary to find the definitions of 'spirituality' and 'religion' as being quite different. Spirituality is defined as a general sense of God or transcendent reality, whereas religion dictates who God is, what

God says etc. So contrary to the authors argued opinion (which has no place in an online encylopedic reference anyway) there is a significant difference between spirituality and religion.

Furthermore--

I have attended 12 step meetings for 18 years and I can tell you that 1) people in 12 step programs don't have to believe in God at all, and 2) people in 12 steps programs are also free to define their concept of God in any they want personally want.

I have heard, thousands of times in A.A. meetings, "You can make a chair your higher power if you like, just as long as you develop trust that something can help you".

The author also expresses a huge bias by repeatedly attacking the disease concept of alcoholism and even putting the labeling of alcoholism as a "problem" in quotes, as if the very idea that drinking compulsively being a 'problem' is somehow suspect.

This smacks of a writer who is so intellectually driven that reality simply becomes a canvas that one paints over with ones own ideas.

Sorry, but the reality is that compulsive drinking (and other compulsive addictions)are serious illness that have destroyed and damaged countless lives and no amount of intellectual 're-thinking' can paint over that objective fact.

The reality also remains that A.A, and other 12 Step programs have helped millions of people to stop drinking, drugging and other compulsive patterns of behavior (and I am one of those people).

It is also true that the 12 Steps do not work for a lot of people-- that courts and governments should never force participation in them-- and that other treatment approaches work as well (and more progress in the area of treatment is needed).

It would be nice if wikipeda would find an author that was less academic, less looking down upon reality from an ivory tower, and more someone from the front lines of real life experience to comment on the 12 Steps and what they can and can't do for people.

One could easily have written an article that was reflective of the flaws and limitations of the 12 Step programs (as well as their great contribution to the recovery of milions of people) without producing something that is so soaked in gross political bias.

Sincerely,

Phil M. Recovered from crippling OCD for 18 years thanks to the 12 Step programs.

Also 80% recovered from crippling social anxiety disorder thanks to 12 step programs.

(I have attended A.A.meetings for many years in order to learn and use the 12 steps, and as parallel 12 step programs for OCD and social anxiety disorder emerged, I attended them as well for years. I know the steps don't help everyone, but they have sure helped me).

Please find a new author and start over from scratch. This article is so extremely biased that it is not even worth editing--

P.S. It is telling and almost humorous that the author writes the phrase at one point "crictics of 12 step programs" while it is so obvious that the author is a critic of 12 Step Programs and this whole article is not an encyclopoedic description, but is nothing more than a critique.

Very sloppy and irresponsible! You can't tweak an op-ed column and make it into an encyclopedic reference. You need to trash it and start from scratch.

I was told in (and saved) a Wikipedia personal message from Mr. Christopher that I could post this here.

== This Wikipedia article on 12 Step Programs is An Opinion Piece and is Not An Encyclopedic Description-- Very Innapropriate for an Online Encyclopedia.

Feedback-- this is an overly harsh and overly poltically-correct interpretation of the 12 Steps.

This Wikipedia article is not a description of the 12 Steps, it is a critique of the 12 steps.

Thus it far oversteps the stated mission of wikipedia as being an online encyclopedia and instead reads like a thesis paper attacking the 12 steps. Thesis papers by definition do not describe, they take positions, they take sides.

That would be fine for a thesis paper but has nothing to do with describing something in an encyclopedic sense.

This article is all opinion from start to finish. Rather than providing an encyclopedic description, it instead becomes a polemical opinion piece on the 12 steps. All it does is promote the authors opinions rather than simply describing what 12 step programs are. Very politically motivated and very manipulative!

If opinion is all that Wikipedia wants-- here are some of my opinions on the subject of the 12 steps--

Although I too am critical of 12 Step programs and aware of their flaws, I nevertheless balance that criticism with appreciation that 12 Step Programs saved my life.

Wikipedia should get politics out of the process here and find a more neutral writer or editor-- this writer clearly has political biases that saturate the writing here with the political agenda of wanting to oppose or overly-criticise A.A. and other 12 Step Programs because of the higher power concept.

An appropriate wikipedia writer (and article) for this subject would be descriptive rather than evaluative. Describing rather than evaluating the 12 steps and 12 step programs.

But since the main article is heavily laced with opinion, here are some more opinions from me--

I do agree with one main thrust of the writers argument however-- that A.A. (and the 12 Steps in general) are not the only way to get better.

Additionally I agree that Court-mandated attendence at 12 Step meetings forces spirituality on those who may not want it or may not be predisposed to benefiting from it. Courts and also State and Federal governments have no place getting involved in 12 Step programs in this way and participation should never be forced on anyone.

It should however be noted that 12 Step programs have a stated (and written) policy of "attraction not promotion". So don't blame 12 Step programs for what the courts are doing.

Implying that Bill Wilson and Bob Smith were allegedly struck sober by their own personal spiritual experiences crosses an editorial line here and shows the writer to have an awful lot of bias.

It would be fine to say that Bill Wilson and Doctor Bob 'reported' or 'related' that they had spiritual experiences which lifted their desire to drink--

But instead this Wikipedia article snidely describes their experiences as "unusual cures".

Most telling is the fact that the writer attacks the A.A./12 Step seperation of the concept of religion from the concept of spirituality-- and essentially claims that all spirituality is religious--

"The 'spirituality' idea was originally defined by Wilson as reliance on the Creator — truly a religious idea."

In fact belief in some kind of God is a different matter than defining that God or codifying the dictates of that God. One need go no further than a dictionary to find the definitions of 'spirituality' and 'religion' as being quite different. Spirituality is defined as a general sense of God or transcendent reality, whereas religion dictates who God is, what

God says etc. So contrary to the authors argued opinion (which has no place in an online encylopedic reference anyway) there is a significant difference between spirituality and religion.

Furthermore--

I have attended 12 step meetings for 18 years and I can tell you that 1) people in 12 step programs don't have to believe in God at all, and 2) people in 12 steps programs are also free to define their concept of God in any they want personally want.

I have heard, thousands of times in A.A. meetings, "You can make a chair your higher power if you like, just as long as you develop trust that something can help you".

The author also expresses a huge bias by repeatedly attacking the disease concept of alcoholism and even putting the labeling of alcoholism as a "problem" in quotes, as if the very idea that drinking compulsively being a 'problem' is somehow suspect.

This smacks of a writer who is so intellectually driven that reality simply becomes a canvas that one paints over with ones own ideas.

Sorry, but the reality is that compulsive drinking (and other compulsive addictions)are serious illness that have destroyed and damaged countless lives and no amount of intellectual 're-thinking' can paint over that objective fact.

The reality also remains that A.A, and other 12 Step programs have helped millions of people to stop drinking, drugging and other compulsive patterns of behavior (and I am one of those people).

It is also true that the 12 Steps do not work for a lot of people-- that courts and governments should never force participation in them-- and that other treatment approaches work as well (and more progress in the area of treatment is needed).

It would be nice if wikipeda would find an author that was less academic, less looking down upon reality from an ivory tower, and more someone from the front lines of real life experience to comment on the 12 Steps and what they can and can't do for people.

One could easily have written an article that was reflective of the flaws and limitations of the 12 Step programs (as well as their great contribution to the recovery of milions of people) without producing something that is so soaked in gross political bias.

Sincerely,

Phil M. Recovered from crippling OCD for 18 years thanks to the 12 Step programs.

Also 80% recovered from crippling social anxiety disorder thanks to 12 step programs.

(I have attended A.A.meetings for many years in order to learn and use the 12 steps, and as parallel 12 step programs for OCD and social anxiety disorder emerged, I attended them as well for years. I know the steps don't help everyone, but they have sure helped me).

Please find a new author and start over from scratch. This article is so extremely biased that it is not even worth editing--

P.S. It is telling and almost humorous that the author writes the phrase at one point "crictics of 12 step programs" while it is so obvious that the author is a critic of 12 Step Programs and this whole article is not an encyclopoedic description, but is nothing more than a critique.

Very sloppy and irresponsible! You can't tweak an op-ed column and make it into an encyclopedic reference. You need to trash it and start from scratch.

Sean7phil 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox

Clearly this Wikipedia article on the 12 Step Programs violates Wikipedias policy of not being a soapbox.

See below--'' Sean7phil 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.

BOy is this Wkipepedia Artcle on the 12 Steps Adovacy! It totally violates Wikipedias rules!

Sean7phil 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC) .

This Article Lists Sources From 9 Critics of 12 Step Programs and Only References 1 (one) Supporter: Very Biased

If you look in the footnotes of this article in Critics and Supporters Sections, this Article Lists Sources From 9 Critics of 12 Step Program and Only References 1 Supporter.

9 critics books are cited but only the book of one supporter?!!

That shows a huge bias of the author of this article (or the net article) against 12 Step programs.

This article is not fixable and should be removed and a truley neutral author should be found to write a description of 12 Step Programs rather than a critique of them.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox-- it is not a place to critique things-- it is an online encyclopedia designed to describe things.

Dear Wikipedia admins--

The 12 Step Programs aren't perfect but they have saved millions of lives. Please make it a priority to clear the way for a more fair article to describe them here.

Phil M.

Still no action on this grossly biased article? Where is Wikipeda when you need them?

I encourage people to email Wikipedia to protest the extreme anti-12 Step bias of this article.

Sean7phil 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea that 12 step programs has saved millions of lives is the grossest of all the lies propounded by Bill Wilson's and Robert Smith's cult. Professor George Vaillant, a member of AA World Service Inc Board of Trustees and enthusiastic proponent of steppism compiled 40 years of clinical studies. This included an 8 year longitudinal study of patients who had undergone 12 step treatment. The results were in his words "appalling". 95 per cent of the 12-step patients relapsed at some point over the next 8 years. Exactly the same as the group in this study who received no treatment at all. Oh, but he did find that you were 6 times more likely to die if you received 12 step treatment.

The truth is that not one scientifically valid study (ie random, longitudinal, with a control group) has ever shown AA to be any better than no treatment whatsoever. Not one. So before people blithely make the point that "AA saves lives" and jump up and down when forums such as Wikipedia don't repeat this baseless mantra, bear in mind that that the scientific evidence points to the alternate statement - AA is a waste of time. And my own experience going to these ridiculous meetings and studying cults more widely points to one startlingly obvious conclusion. AA is an ineffectual, pernicious, religious cult that belongs back in the dark ages.

How many people (in the US) are addicted to alcohol?

Does anyone have a rough number, please?

I dont know but a national and professional study showed that in 2003, 90% of alcoholics were dying of alcoholism. That same year Alcoholics Anonymous membership world-wide was over 2 million, and America hosted the biggest AA fellowship.. just some numbers to crunch...

Roughly 10-15% of the US population suffers from alcoholism. Obviously, a percentage of these folks are in recovery, another group of them are in places where they can't access alcohol easily (prison, residential programs, etc.), and some are simply abstinent at the moment. A reasonable estimate would be that 7-10% of the population suffers from current physiologic addiction to alcohol. Drgitlow 02:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous?

I hear many arguments to defend NOT believeing in God or "higher power" and that AA IS a religious organization. Why don't many of you go lookup religion in the wiki? You DON'T see AA listed. AA is a social organization with a foundation in spiritual beliefs. I see it very similar to freemasonary, which too believes in a "higher power" but refer to it as a "Supreme Being". If you take the time to look at the wiki definition of freemasonary there is no ongoing debate about freemasonary as a religion. It's ridiculous to think that there should be a debate about AA in this way. In particular, read the section about freemasonary and religion. Notice the entry gives a unbiased description of the relationship of religion within freemasonary. Why is there such nonsense about this in the AA entry. I have never seen religious rites, ceremonies, or the like at an AA meeting. Yes there is discussion of spirtiual principles, and prayer. But no more or less than visting a friends house and praying over dinner. Or that of the Masonic lodge. In fact the Masonic lodge is much more organized and ahere's to a stricter requirement of belief in God than AA, but yet the entry for Freemasonary specifically says that it is not a religion. And I quote...."However, those Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE explicitly and adhere to the principle that Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion; There is no separate "Masonic god", and there is no separate proper name for a deity in Freemasonry. [70] Freemasonry is non-dogmatic and constitutionally governed."

Using this context for desciption, there is NO AA deity, nor does it profess that there is a requirement to believe in one, merely the "desire to stop drinking...". Legal evidence is not scientific or necessarily factual. Hence, circumstantial evidence.

I would ask that a truely unbiased description be presented. One that includes no debate about whether it's religious program. Or at least both views - for and against.

I'm pretty sure the concern here is based on legal cases in the U.S., in which AA has been found to be a religious organization or practice within the meaning of U.S. law. This doesn't mean that AA is bad, or that it discriminates against atheists, or anything of the sort. But it is relevant in U.S. law, for the specific reason that it is illegal for the government to sponsor or require people to follow a religious practice. To use your analogy, it would likewise be illegal for the government to sponsor a Masonic lodge. --FOo 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of AA-brother, Narcotics Anonymous. There is such a hype about religion and 12step fellowships because 1. Perhaps the fact that the official literature mentions repeatedly that AA shares no affiliation with religion, people's attention is naturally brought to that subject. Also, many of the first 100 men and woman of AA were indeed religious (They made no attempt to 'convert' the program)

2. MANY people who end up in AA, for a short while or a long while, come in with MANY prejudices regarding religion. It has been the spiritual aspect of the program that has bheen used as ammunition by dying, unwilling alcoholics.

For much and indeed interesting info, download shares by alcoholics at the XA-Speakers website. Try earching for Bob D, Jay P, Earl H.

The courts disagree with you on the claim that "AA shares no affiliation with religion". I suggest you read up on the the cited case, Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y. 2d. 674. Here is a very readable summary (low on the legal jargon) by the Cornell University law school: [3]. --FOo 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange wording

Adding weasel template to be used in conjunction with POV template for ad populum arguments such as: "often referred to by its' members as the most powerful spiritual program in the world"; "and many come to regard their original addiction as a blessing"; "Many people who have joined these groups report they found success that previously eluded them".

Statments using weasel words against 12 step/AA program(s) were then immediaty balanced by a refuting view, making them more un-weasely in my personal view: "Critics of the 12-step programs, however, often hold that this reliance is ineffective, and offensive or inapplicable to atheists and others who do not believe in a salvific deity. Other critics see forms of authoritarian mind control in the 12 step approach. However, Neopagans tend to view the 12 steps as a tool of empowerment so they do not share these concerns over giving up self-reliance and willpower."

I would edit it myself, but, as it is not my area of expertise I would probably remove many paragraphs instead of rewording them. I would also like to give a chance to the more frequent editors of this page to make appropiate changes themselves. Thank you. Least 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And this sentence is crazy if not downright sick -

and many come to regard their original addiction as a blessing and the price paid for admission to this unique movement based on the unconditional love of one alcoholic for another and the direct acces to God provided without any intermediary.

That's like saying you're grateful to have cancer because you love the cancer treatment center so much. Look up cults and love bombing and read that sentence again....Removing the blatant POV, orignal research, etc., in this article would result in about 4 sentences being left. The whole article should be deleted, it's a goner if you ask me. In fact I think it is so far gone no one wants to touch it with a 10 footer...Mr Christopher 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTc

In response to the idea that A.A. didn't ask the courts to send probationers to A.A., it is my understanding that the Chicago area A.A. GSO (General Service Office) approached the courts and asked them to send "alcoholics" to them--I actually spoke with an "old-timer" at a regional assembly in Milwaukee who spoke of groups that would provide signatures and the actual forms for proof of attendence at those particular groups. Now, I understand that each group is an individual entity and doesn't neccesarily speak for the entirety of A.A., but, in my experience as a past group, district and area A.A. General Services Representative, A.A. has an "inverted pyramid"-type hierarchy, and that A.A. groups are the ultimate source of and arena for "group conscience" decisions. Representatives carry the "group conscience" and its desires and questions to District, Area, Regional, North American and International conferences. This is how changes start in A.A., at the group level. In fact, to change the first section of A.A.'s "Big Book", Alcoholics Anonymous, would require 3/5's of all A.A. groups WORLDWIDE to vote in favor of such a change. Therefore, in fact, A.A. did ask courts to send offenders to "open" meetings (meetings that are open to the general public).

AA publishes specific literature for recruiting (12 step work?) from the courts, probation, etc. A significant amount of new AA members come from such channeles that AA has embraced Mr Christopher 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the completely grassroots nature of 12 step groups make it quite unique in terms of Weasel words. There is no authoritative discourse to reference, all we can go by is the stories. The interesting thing about this is that the stories are precisely the reason for the existence of said groups. The empathetic learning of the emotive experience has provided millions of people with some principles that are of vast importance to them personally. I think that 12 step recovery has more in common with say... kabbalah.. than with psychology or therapy. Pozcircuitboy 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is Religion and Spirtuallity defined as?

Wiki says Religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition. It is commonly understood as a group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object (real or imagined), person (real or imagined), or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1]

The key word that stands out is "a group of beliefs" ..."concerning an" enitaity. If the 12 step program suggests a higher power of your own understanding how does this make the 12 steps religious?

wiki says The central defining characteristic of spirituality is a sense of connection to much greater whole which includes an emotional experience of religious awe and reverence. As with some forms of religion, the emphasis of spirituality is often on personal experience. It may be an expression for life perceived as higher, more complex or more integrated with one's worldview, as contrasted with the merely sensual.

thus 12 steps are spirtual program of recovery.

List the 12 Steps

I don't know much about AA, that's why I'm reading up on it here at Wikipedia.

But it seemed strange to me that the 12 Steps were not listed here in the Twelve-step program entry. Or the AA entry.

I think they should be included, even if someone feels that they should be framed by a qualifying statement that their wording varies for specific programs, or in different circles.

But I think readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to find out what they are.

--cbelz

I agree with you completely. Someone who is unfamiliar with both copyright law, scholarship, and media in general went through every article that had the 12 steps listed and removed them all. I am not kidding you. I objected (and they responded) but they proclaimed themselves as the authority on the subject and did not revert their follishness. I have other priorities right now so I have not revisited the subject (or repaired the foolishness).

Not listing the 12 steps in this article (and others) does our readers a real disservice. It borders criminal (just kidding as they say). And allowing someone to remove something that vital from an article like this gives creedence to their foolishness. No law is broken when you quote a source (like Alcoholics Anonymous) about what their freakin' steps are. Every single quote in every single article is probably copyrighted material, yet every media on Earth quotes copyrighted material every single day. The Twelve Steps are no exception. The question is what are the twelve steps the reliable, source on that subject is Alcoholics Anonymous, of course we can quote them. Please feel free to quote any Twelve Step program on what their steps are add them back to the artcle (prominantly I might add, after all, this is what the entire article is grounded in) and if someone feels the need to remove it again then we'll consider it vandalism. Be sure and cite your source for the steps you use in the article Mr Christopher 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I did it myself, I should have done it a long time ago. Mr Christopher 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All that has been done is an extremely biased attack on the 12 Steps has been falsely presented as a 'description' of them. This is intellectual dishonesty-- no more, no less.

Sean7phil 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of people with alcoholism

There was a request for the number of people impacted by alcoholism. The following information comes from: NSDUH, 2004; NESARC Study: Grant et al., Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:807-816, 2004. The numbers refer to the US Population. There are about 150K people treated with medications for alcoholism. This is compared with the 2.7 Million in any form of treatment. About 900K are in specialty medical/clinical treatment, with the rest doing AA/Other only. In any year there are about 8 Million with alcohol dependence. So those treated are a small percentage of those with the diagnosis, and the number on meds is miniscule. Drgitlow 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement of "Intended" Use of 12 Steps

The first paragraph of this artcle contains an inaccuracy regarding th intented application of the 12 steps. It inaccurately states, "Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12 Steps were designed and are only intended for use by alcoholics".

The 12 Steps were first published in the book entitled "Alcoholics Anonymous" (also known as the Big Book). The text of this book itself, in the Chapter called "To Wives" states the following:

We urge you to try our program, for nothing will be so helpful to your husband as the radically changed attitude toward him which God will show you how to have. Go along with you husband if you possibly can.

Thus, the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous - the "we" voice from which most of the prescriptive chapters of the text is written - directly invites non-alcoholics (specificly, in this case, wives of alcoholics) to try "our program".

I suppose it could be posited that "our program" might mean some loose reflection or adaption of the spiritual principles associated with AA. But, again, the text of the Big Book itself clarifies this for us. For in introducing the 12 Steps, the text clearly refers to them as the "program":

Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery. (Quoted from Chapter 5 - How it Works.)

In fact, if one examines the 18 times the word "program" occurs in the text of the Big Book, one finds that there is only one single occurrence where a program is offered - all other references - including the invitation to wives - point to that singular definition. And that definition of program introduces the 12 steps.

Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

I read throught the entire article and this talk page, and did not spot a single reference to the Bullshit! episode regarding 12-step programs. Not sure how acceptable the episode itself is as a reference, but it could certainly be used as a guide for criticism if other references can be found. It certainly seems to at least deserve a mention. This episode does not seem to have found its way on to google video or youtube. I don't feel comfortable editing the article myself as my view of religion, "spirituality" and anything related is rather... deeply bitter. 71.87.55.36 09:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Impact in Society?

Maybe should we include a seperate section about how twelve steps has impacted society, or influenced pop culture or something like that. Most articles seem to have a section like that. For example, progressive rock drummer Mike Portnoy, a successful "graduate" of the twelve step program, has and is still writing a twelve-song tribute to the alcoholics anonymous, with each song representing each step. Also, I could name several references and jokes about twelve step programs in TV and movies, such as, say a character in a comedy/sitcom is OCD about something. They'll walk into a room, saying "Guess where I got back from?", and another character will sarcastically remark, "What, Twitcher's Anonymous?" Just an example.

Grammar error?

Does this read right?

"Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films"

Is it "we need to" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
It is an acceptable use of need without the to. See for example in definition #9 at dictionary.com[4] Palema 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that this was written circa 1940. US English useage has changed much since these principles were written. Pozcircuitboy 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Customer Comment

Hi. I'm not a Wikipedian, just a guy who was reading and stumbled onto this article. Then I came and read this discussion. Here is my feedback:

I don't think the article is biased. It is true, as someone pointed out, that there are many more critical than lauditory references. But as far as I can tell, that's not bias, that's just an indication of the state of things. What I can't help but notice is that, despite all the anecdotal praise for AA on this page, nobody that *I* see has done a thing to rebutt the damning claim that research shows that AA isn't actually broadly effective. The critics have court rulings that AA is indeed religious, again the supports only offer anecdotal evidence. If there is actual contrary *evidence* to these criticisms, then they should be included in the article, but I haven't even seen them here in the Vehement Arguing section. And lacking that, *of course* an objective article on the 12 steps is going to look pretty negative. Just like an article about "spontaneous generation" or "divine right of kings" or "manifest destiny" is going to look pretty negative, because actual, factual, supporting arguments are going to be few and far between. You think I'm being unfair? I had no opinion at ALL about the effectiveness of AA, pro or con, before I came and read all this stuff, particularly this arguing page. Now I'm convinced that it's nonsense, *because the supporters have FAILED to rebutt*.

In any case, having both sides of the controversy represented in the article is important. I came looking this stuff up precisely BECAUSE I was interested in learning more about the religion controversy. So don't be taking that stuff out. If more actual support can be found for the pro side, by all means put that in. But it better be of better quality than lots of what I read here, where people are trying to cleaim that "God" doesn't mean "God". "God", with a capital G, undeniably means The Judeo-Christian Jehova of the Bible. Trying to claim that it could refer to Krishna or Zeus or your family or something is as ridiculous as claiming that "Mozart" could mean "Beethoven" or "Paul McCartney" or myself (who also writes music). "God" is explicitly mentioned in 4 out of 12 steps, plus "Him" in a fifth (where as the broader "Power greater than ourselves" appears in only one). This is prima facie evidence that AA is religious (not a "religion"!). The simple, obvious truth is, if AA weren't religious, if the higher power truly could be *anything*, then it wouldn't say "God". There are a million non-religious ways to talk about a higher power, and AA has chosen to eschew them. I don't deny that certain AA *members* believe that they can rationalize the "God" out of "God", but that doesn't change what the 12 steps actually say, right there in black and white.

So to summarize: the article is good as it is. If pro-AA people can come up with better quality support for why AA is effective, it should be added, but the caliber of argument I'm seeing here on this page doesn't make me feel like it's out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

There's a lot of research showing the effectiveness of AA: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. You can find more if you do something as simple as a Google Scholar search on Alcoholics Anonymous. The article isn't good as it is, it's missing citations and full of original research. Each section is biased to one side. The only question is, why am I not doing something about it? Mostly because I don't have the energy to jump in to an article that I know is going to be full of controversy and edit wars. When I do, I will try to scratch it off my TODO list. :) -- Craigtalbert 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

citation(s) needed

article lacks many citations for alleged factual claims —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Und1sk0 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

does not belong in psychology section

the psychology of twelve-steps can be studied, but the 12 steps are not a psychological endeavor or process. lumping this into psychology is like lumping a recipe in the chemistry section -- the discursive analysis that psychology brings is an outside endeavor to a particular code of life embodied in the 12 steps. i believe a fundamental failure to realize this distinction is the reason why the quality of this article is so poor, despite its widely-edited history. separating a methodological analysis of a way of life from a descriptive experience of a way of life is vital to this article being useful for anyone. such a psychological perspective belongs as a descriptive response to the actual content of the encyclopediac information but does not comprise a complete compendium of information of the topic of the 12 steps. Please refer to What_Wikipedia_is_not for more clarification. Pozcircuitboy 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ok where does this go

These programs share a few things in common, most obviously their emphasis on addiction or alcoholism as an illness that mere abstinance will not cure. In theory within the twelve-step environment, it is thought that the illness of addiction or alcoholism is attributed to a physical allergy that creates uncontrollable cravings coupled with a psychological obsession that keeps finding rationalizations for relapse. Recovery from the illness can occur by taking individual responsibility for one's own recovery by relying on the will of a power not controlled by such cravings. True to the Twelve Traditions, twelve-step programs do not take positions on outside issues, including medicine.

I don't like that paragraph much, it reeks of what some therapist would think as an outsider. it is interesting and i don't object to it being in the article, but there is no clear place for it right now. i will add it later elsewhere if i get around to it before someone else does. Pozcircuitboy 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Twelve Promises

I just removed the section labelled "the 12 promises". I wanted to explain why. I do understand that some AA groups refer to the 9th step promises from the big book with great emphasis. I understand they are important to many AA'ers. However, I don't think that it is a 12-step issue in itself - i think that it is probably specific to AA only. Please include this in the AA article!! It's good stuff!! But I do not believe that it belongs here lumped in with all 12 step fellowships. Pozcircuitboy 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Twelve Promises are not used word for word by all groups in the same way that the steps and traditions are. I'm pretty sure AA, NA, Al-Anon/Alateen, and Nar-Anon all use the Twelve Promises as they came from the Big Book. Many other groups use "Twelve Promises" but have modified them somewhat: Emotions Anonymous, ACOA, Co-Dependants Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, and some of the 'S's groups. What would you think about keeping them in this article with a caution that they're not used by all groups? -- Craigtalbert 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to restore these with a note about them being used in the other groups. -- Craigtalbert 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My experience has been that there is a very strong anti-AA and anti-Big Book sentiment in NA, so I will remove the reference to NA and Nar-Anon. I personally work the steps through NA and attend at least one NA meeting a week, and find it silly (also being involved in AA), but that is my individual experience. I found a document which specifically recommends NA members not refer to non-NA literature in meetings "thereby avoiding any implied endorsement or affiliation". Again, please add it to AA if appropriate, but the fact is, there is no way to get a reference to support this claim because it is not AA conference approved either. I will wait awhile to make any further adjustment but would appreciate a response. Respectfully yours - Pozcircuitboy 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... You know, that's a good argument. I'll remove them. — Craigtalbert 23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Twelve-step program/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I will always be grateful for the help I've recieved from a twelve step program. How can anyone make a decision about something without first trying it? If you haven't tried any of the twelve step programs, please go to an 'open' meeting. Anyone is welcome at an open meeting.

Last edited at 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)