Hacker News Reader

Comment by labrador | Hacker News Reader

> Although most people profess to want to change at least one aspect of their personality, those who will put the effort in are surely far fewer

Many people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't actually do the 12 steps as designed by Bill Wilson. They don't understand that it's a piece of spiritual technology designed to produce a spiritual awakening and a reorganization of personality. I've met many people who have become better people through the 12 steps.

I've rewritten them here to give a basic outline and remove any mention of a theistic god. I am not a professional so please forgive me if I've over-simplified or got something wrong. This is how it worked for me at a basic level.

1 - Take a look and see if you have a problem. Admit you have a problem if you have one. You can't fix a problem you refuse to recognize.

2 - Recognize you've tried to solve it by yourself and have failed. You need help from others.

3 - Humble yourself enough to ask for help and be ready to follow direction

4 - List all the complaints people have about you and analyze what you might be doing wrong

5 - Share your failings, no matter how embarrassing, with a trusted other on the principle that confession is good for the soul and sunlight is the best disinfectant

6 - Ask yourself if you're really willing to change. That's not a given. Maybe you aren't.

7 - If you are then do what it takes to change. This is going to be different for everyone.

8 - Look at step 4 and see who you need to apologize to

9 - When you feel you are ready and sufficiently reformed, apologize and make restitution to those on the list you made in step 8. To those that aren't willing to talk, let it go and don't bother them.

10 - Make it a practice to do steps 4 through 9 as needed. We believe in progress not perfection.

11 - We need to remind ourselves daily that we have a problem that we can't solve alone and that we may need the help of others on any given day. I've heard it called a disease of forgetfulness. We may need to wake up in the morning to read and pray if so inclined. As one person told me, "carve out a little piece of each day for the 12 steps"

12 - Carry this message to others who are still suffering

View on HN

Nice summary. Can you explain why someone who has "recovered" and is no longer suffering the ruinous effects of alcohol in their life still considered an alcoholic? I heard someone on the radio today say that they are an alcoholic, but in the same sentence said they were 30 years sober, which seemed like a massive contradiction to me. I don't think it was a mistaken use of present tense. I've heard similar statements from others.

It's because they know even one casual drink can lead them down the same path they were on previously, so it's a reminder to themselves and others. It might also be something of an absolutionary statement, where they feel guilt for their past "sin" of drinking and feel the need to label themselves à la The Scarlet Letter to atone for their sin and obtain absolution.

Maybe it is sometimes part of a person's identity. But people who have quit using tobacco or other drugs are typically called "ex-smokers" or "former users/addicts", respectively. (Even though "smoker" is still a somewhat "cool" identity in popular culture, with many movie villains - and some heroes - still smoking.)

Without trying to make it sound judgemental I know literal dozens of people who stopped smoking and it hardly comes up in conversation anymore - I think I have like 2 friends left who smoke, out of... more than 50%? And several of them smoked for 10 years or more.

Maybe it's because most people don't just randomly are offered cigarettes or because it went from a "50% of the population" to "10% of the population in this age group".

I'm not saying that sober alcoholics are making a big deal out of it, it just feels different - maybe because it is seen as a lot more problematic than being a smoker? Or harder to quit. Or because it's rarer.

There is far less of a psychological component to tobacco than alcohol.

Like someone else said, alcohol is far more in your face each day than other drugs.

Good point - cigarettes are increasingly harder to find, and are banned in many places (restaurants) where alcohol is readily available, and associated with sociability. There even seem to be more marijuana shops vs. tobacco shops (or liquor stores for that matter) in some places, and the former are advertised while tobacco advertising is banned. On the other hand, while smoking may be in decline, I still see (and smell) vaping everywhere.

Plenty of people go out the door after X years then go back in worse states than when they first showed up. Once picking up a drink/drug/whatever, they're off and running again. 10 - 12 are "maintenance" to stave that sort of thing off. There's no end to working 10 - 12. They're a daily practice of continued growth. There's no end point (recovered), recovery continues on (recovering).

It's also a practice to keep everyone on the same level. Everyone is an alcoholic -- otherwise it'd just be a bunch of old farts telling new guys what to do (then hardly anyone would come back).

I always found this a little odd, even though I understand the reasoning behind it. I think it would be more accurate to say that they're no longer an alcoholic, but "struggle with addiction", or "have addictive tendencies", or something like that. But that's a bit of a mouthful, and in part I think people continue to call themselves alcoholics even when they've been consistently sober is that it's a strong, shorthand reminder that even one drink can send them right back to where they started.

Isn't "alcoholic" defined as a person who "struggles with addiction" to alcohol? I think that makes sense.

I think it's defined as someone who "is addicted" to alcohol.

Alcoholism is a genetic predisposition and addictive personalities in general probably are too.

Alcoholic here.

In my AA we say that alcoholism is a chronic disease. The same as (some forms) of diabetes, you don’t just get rid if it. Its something you can manage but not cure. It lies dormant inside of you the rest of your life.

My mentor (highly successful and 30 years sober) said it nicely: he has an angry tiger inside of him thats trapped inside a cage. One that will surely eat him if it gets out. His job is to keep the tiger in the cage.

Thats what it feels like. Every day. The cravings go down, the thoughts, etc. Self control improves. But the danger lies dormant for us.

As someone who suffered from deep depression, but never alcoholism - the way alcoholism is described by alcoholics always rings true with how I experience (and hear described by others) depression. I am no longer suffering from depression actively; the symptoms of it are essentially gone. But there's life events, certain situations, certain moments of deeper vulnerability, that feel like I might slip back into it.

Surprisingly enough, although there seem to be parallels with how people experience 'life after' both things, I find it curious that alcoholics I talk to often use the "caged animal" metaphor, whereas depressives tend to describe it more as walking "a tight rope" or "at the edge of an abyss" metaphor.

I too have suffered from some serious bouts of depression and self-doubt.

And while I find the steps here laid out really admirable, I struggle to see how to translate the steps to my afflictions.

Closest I can come is to see the impact of failing to trust. Failing to trust myself and trust others. And failing to let myself be vulnerable.

Thanks for mentioning it, sometimes I feel isolated in my experience of walking at the edge of a cliff. It seems like a good portion of my mental energy goes into the daily practice of keeping depression away. But my therapist has kindly explained why it’s chronic and something to manage for life.

What do they consider the threshold for alcoholism?

I.e. how bad was your drinking before you realized you had a problem?

Have some experience with NA but assuming functionally the same, and there isnt a set threshold. If you are unable to stop taking a substance in any circumstance that is negatively impacting you then you are considered and an addict. Whether thats just every Friday night or every day. Its the inability to stop that makes you an addict rather than the frequency. Tbh i didnt get on with it at all, waaay to goddy for me but I appreciate the work they do for people.

I remember a rule of thumb being "if you cannot remember the last day on which you did not have any alcohol, you're an alcoholic". Probably not what AA goes by, but I like the simplicity of it.

if i drink a glass of beer everyday with dinner i am an alcoholic?

Probably not but two maybe. Source: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...

Can you stop tomorrow? If so, then no. If you make excuses why you can’t or shouldn’t, or when you try you have physical or psychological problems, then yes.

This is weird - my mother very rarely drinks but she’ll be hard pressed telling you exactly when was the last time time . This doesn’t make her an alcoholic.

Or should you start the rule with ‘you’ve been drinking everyday for a while’?

If can't remember the last time she DID NOT take alcohol, it does make her an alcoholic. Or just an old person with severe memory issues, who shouldn't even live alone at that point.

The clinical American definition is 14 servings per week for men and 7 for women.

Personally, I was what you call a dipsomaniac. Colloquially that is called a binge drinker. I drank 4 to 9 days at a time from morning to night (and night time) without a break. Luckily I only drank like this 7 times in 4 years but I almost died in my last binge.

We see alcoholics of all kind in AA: frequent and a lot, infrequent and a lot, and frequent and little. The frequent and little are the hardest to crack because they have the hardest time with step 1. Now step one is actually comprised of two components: realizing you have a problem (easy for me) and also admitting you were not in control of your own life anymore (hard for me). Its only through doing the 12 step work really arduously, going to meetings and having a great sponsor that I was able to change enough to where drinking no longer ran my life.

You know that that "angry tiger inside you" feeling can go away completely right? That angry tiger is not biological part of who you are, it's a dissociated memory of how you felt when you were a child, which continues to live on in you in the present because you haven't fully processed your childhood feelings. All else being equal, keeping the tiger caged up is better than letting it loose, but you can also heal it so that it goes away completely, which will benefit your life in many ways, most of which are not even related to alcohol. Healing usually requires softening the cage that the tiger lives in bit by bit as you become increasingly able to metabolize him, or cutting the tiger up into pieces and dealing with a piece of him at a time.

Alcohol in AA is viewed as an allergy—a lifelong illness. Someone may have recovered and dealt with their fears and resentments. That doesn’t mean they won’t slip back into negative coping mechanisms though.

For an alcoholic, it takes vigilance every day.

>Can you explain why someone who has "recovered" and is no longer suffering the ruinous effects of alcohol in their life still considered an alcoholic?

I've known people with substance abuse problems, some of them recovered and had healthy relationships with substances. Some of them stopped using for long periods but touching the substance again relit the problem just the same as before.

The latter group even sober for decades are still alcoholics (or whatever other substance). There are people for which the problem never goes away, they just manage not to indulge it.

It is AA orthodoxy that one never truly recovers from alcoholism. Many non-AA people disagree. Arguably, the debate is over semantics, not substance.

> Arguably, the debate is over semantics, not substance.

[insert joke about “substance” and abuse here]

I picked up "Atomic Habits" recently, tbh mostly because I've seen it being hyped all over - I was expecting it to be along the lines of "if you just do X for even 5 min every day...", but one of the early ideas that get introduced is that identity can play a big part in how we function with regards to our habits, which resonated with me, and I think is interesting in the context of your question.

The idea is that our sense of identity and image of self shapes our behaviour, subconsciously to a large extent. So if someone offers you a cigarette and you're trying to quit, it can make a difference if you frame it as "No thank you, I'm trying to quit" (I still identify as a smoker, but I'm trying to not do it), vs "no thank you, I'm not a smoker (anymore)".

Applied to defining goals vs parts of identity- not "I want to run every day and compete in a marathon", but "I 'd like to be a marathon runner". Because, in a lot of cases, we want to do something because of the qualities or traits we perceive the people doing it to have.

To me, it sounds good in this context as well - instead "I have to stop drinking" - "I want to be a sober man".

There is a little book called "The Bottlehopper" by Bob Edwards. It provides a great understanding of what being an alcoholic is.

This is an extremely powerful rephrasing of the 12 steps, and I seriously appreciate you for sharing this with all of us.

Same here. i HEARD about 12 steps but never actually seen them pinpointed like that. Simple yet amazing post

You're welcome. I had to suffer a lot before I figured it out. My purpose in rewriting them was to remove the most common objection that they presuppose a Christian God.

The 12 step program is rooted in Christian theology and treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem so I can understand why some don't want to fully follow it.

Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. Some are period oriented, such as eating pork, which was notoriously hard to make sanitary. Others are to insure a society functions well, like for example not banging your neighbors wife or not causing harm to people.

So, in this light it makes sense to treat it like a sin. And to be fair, it is a sin in modern society as well. We even have “sin taxes” for such vices we determine can be used for tax gain.

I see no real problem with this. I am unaware of any large program that forces you to give yourself up to the Christian God, but most require you to give yourself up to a higher power. This is obviously designed to give you a release from things you can’t control so you can use that mental power to help yourself get better.

But the point is it shouldn't be considered a sin, as in a moral failing, when it's a biochemical change in the body causing a disorder, and the solution is abstention and medicine (for example, GLP-1 agonists have been shown to significantly cut down on cravings [0]). It's like saying getting sick is a sin, when there preventative and curative solutions unrelated to believing in a deity or higher power.

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

It’s foolish to ignore the social component of addiction.

Some of the medicines and treatments showing the most promise are still too expensive for many. AA programs are accessible and can be helpful. You think they treat alcoholism (or alcohol abuse disorder) as a sin? In the meetings there isn’t a whole lot of judging going on. It’s mostly mutual support and compassion.

"which was notoriously hard to make sanitary"

Why were the jews unable to handle pork? Didn't their neighbours manage it?

Some historians speculate that it is a shibboleth to distinguish them from the pork eating gentiles.

honest question, as i simply have no clue about this, is there evidence that they did? given that the koran also forbids pork i doubt that a way to make pork sanitary has been found before then.

Pigs were domesticated (specifically for their meat) for several thousand years already by the time the earliest Jewish dietary restrictions took shape.

There are many theories that try to tie it specifically to the conditions in the Middle East, but none that I'm aware of are particularly convincing.

Pigs –being omnivorous– can acquire parasites that are harmful to humans at a higher rate than herbivorous ungulates.

That was as true 1000 years ago as it is today.

Cooking and salting the meat both greatly reduce incidence.

It is possible that cultures which avoided pork altogether lacked adaptations against the parasites at the genetic level or simply that somebody among them noticed the relationship with illness whilst missing the link with undercooked meat.

Let's say that was possible, why would it be likely, or even the most likely explanation?

How do you square this against, say, the possibility that the early jews wanted to differentiate themselves from the egyptians? I'm not sure about the specifics of the archaeological record but perhaps it was the case that pork was an upper class thing in Egypt due to it being fat and tasty, and slaves and workers were instead fed beef. Then the rule in Leviticus might reflect this and conserve a part of an older identity. In early judaism at least some of the fat from mutton and so on was burnt as a cultic sacrifice, so maybe the idea was to keep tradition from before the exile to the Sinai.

I was indeed going off the premise that there was a scientific reason behind the dietary laws.

Purely cultural reasons are plausible but pork is a staple meat in all cultures where it is allowed. It would be an inordinate sacrifice to make for tradition alone.

If differentiation was the motivation, couldn't they make laws against eating peas or some other inconsequential crop?

In context, pork was only one of many forbidden foods. Certain kinds of locusts being allowed while others not, certain kinds of seafood being allowed while others not.

They have been debunked as being good heuristics for food safety with 21st century knowledge but that doesn't mean they didn't stem from observations of poison, parasites, etc.

You could apply the same reasoning to the Jewish culture of cleanliness in general. It certainly differentiated them from many other contemporaneous cultures, but why would they wash themselves in the first place?

What do you mean by "inordinate"? Reason as a main source of social norms is a much later ideological invention, usually considered a result of the dominance of the roman catholic church and its adoption of aristotelian philosophy.

You're still defending possibility as such, and not arguing for relative likelihood. I find the lack of anchoring in early judaic society suspicious.

If you read the Torah you'll find that it is not a collection of argumentative texts. To the extent that Leviticus makes an argument it stops at two criteria, cloven hoofs and rumination, without further explanation. This is also how more well-known early judaic legal norms were communicated, e.g. the noahide laws and the decalogue are presented as is without further argument.

The context of early judaism was also quite deadly in itself, people died all the time from a variety of opaque reasons. Figuring out that someone died due to some meat-transmitted parasite rather than a disgruntled shedim wasn't very likely.

The Torah is quite unconcerned with things like health or actions that are supposed to result in a long life, insisting instead that these things are decided by G-d. Dying isn't given a very prominent place in this early theology either, it just kind of shrugs it off with a vague idea about Sheol as a container for souls, in case they just don't stick around like some ancestral ghosts or something.

Pork was widely eaten at the time, so the "good heuristics for food safety" thing seems entirely useless to me. People already knew how to prepare pork and did it, and pork isn't particularly insidious, if kept in a warm environment it'll ward off your nose and taste buds in no time. Beef (and mutton) is more likely to trick you into eating it even though it has gone bad, and it also carries a risk of giving you parasitical or bacterial infections.

I am not going to win in an argument about ancient religious texts.

Personally, even rejecting the food poisoning mechanic, it still rings more likely to me that some more superficial heuristic like "pigs and eels revel in the mud thus they are unclean" existed before religious and/or cultural significance("these beasts are unclean and I'm the Rabbi") was attached to it, rather than the wish for differentiation from other peoples appearing first("the enemy drinks water, henceforth we shall only drink beer").

But perhaps you're right and my mind can't wrap around that of those people from three thousand years ago.

Sheep usually have fecal matter in their rear wool, and pigs aren't the only animals that enjoy a bath in mud or muddy water when it's hot.

I suspect the ancient jewish idea of cultic purity had less to do with washed skin and hair, and more to do with behaviour and discipline. It's much harder to ritually slaughter a pig than a sheep or cow, and perhaps this was associated with rumination by the early jews.

I recently watched a video about the anthropological origins of the pork taboo. The hygiene theory is popular, but not uncontested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI0ZUhBvIx4

Jewish law on this topic is like a thousand years older than the prophet Muhammad, or more, it's not exactly clear when the contents of Leviticus first stabilised.

As for pork as food, it's as old as neolithic societies. Wild boars were a very popular food source, hence why they were eventually domesticated. Now pigs don't produce tasty milk in the same way sheep, goats and cows do, but they produce a lot of meat and offspring without being picky about diet.

Leviticus does not say 'pig meat makes your tummy ill and then you die, so obviously don't eat it', instead it says 'pigs don't chew cud, hence they're impermissible', and frames it as a cultic uncleanliness, similar to contact with menstruating women or somesuch. People don't get parasites and die from a hug with a menstruating woman, but there are still rules in early judaism about it and as far as I know no speculations about it being in any way health related.

If pork wasn't a main meat in Egypt and the Levant in like the bronze age, then it would likely not have been a prominent diet rule in early judaism. G-d has this tendency to make up rules about stuff that people do rather than stuff that they already don't. When it's about things that people don't have to be constrained from doing or encouraged to do that they're already keen on doing, the genre tends to be poetry rather than law.

> Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice.

And yet others were designed to distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. That distinction is worth keeping in mind.

why so ?

> treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem

This is contrary to my understanding of 12 step. Silkworth's framing (which heavily influenced AA) was that alcoholism was the result of an individual's physical reaction to alcohol, not a moral failing.

> rooted in Christian theology

They were absolutely influenced early on by the Oxford Group, too, which did provide some of the context and language.

It's true that the 12 steps emerged from Christian thought. Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob were influenced by the Oxford Group. But similar frameworks exist in other traditions: Buddhism's Eightfold Path, for instance, offers a comparable structure for addressing suffering through right understanding, intention, and action.

It's not accurate to say AA treats alcoholism as a sin. The Big Book describes it as "cunning, baffling, and powerful." Something beyond ordinary willpower, which is precisely why Step 1 acknowledges powerlessness. The theological framing isn't about moral failing but about the need for what Carl Jung described a "vital spiritual experience." A psychic reorganization that ordinary self-will couldn't produce.

https://aaforagnostics.com/blog/carl-jung-letter-to-bill-wil...

> rather than a health problem

What makes you define it is a health problem? Does that help?

Maybe calling booze a sin helps people.

Most importantly, you are answering someone who defined the steps without reference to sin or Christianity.

I think because in the west, Christianity provides a common language and framework for expressing very strong feelings of guilt and redemption. Also what it means to have a spiritual crisis and have to reorganise your life and personality. These kinds of thoughts and feelings can be quite difficult to share with people or explain otherwise.

There are fundamental physiological and psychological reasons also that alcholics in particular feel in the ways they do; this is (IMHO) quite distinct from the religious experience, but "the tools are right there". It's a common language that insiders can quickly pick up and there's a loose mapping to things that outsiders would understand.

The thing that has always bothered me about the 12-step program is that the end goal seems to always be abstinence, at least in the context of alcoholism. It seems very strange to me that we treat the symptom, here, not the underlying disease. Abstaining from alcohol certainly does have positive affects on the life of an alcoholic, but the abuse of alcohol is a symptom, not the root issue.

Do we just not yet understand addiction enough to treat it properly? Are we able to treat addiction (so, for example, someone could successfully limit themselves to low levels of social drinking that don't cause them harm), but doing so is so difficult and hit-or-miss, that we give up and only promote full abstinence as the solution?

I also wonder if abstaining from alcohol can have negative affects on life for some people. Some people use alcohol as a social lubricant; abstaining might mean (detrimentally) less social interaction. In some cultures/environments, not drinking can be career-limiting (I think this is toxic, but fixing that can take generations). I think it's fair to say that, on balance, the pros of not drinking to excess all the time will (nearly?) always outweigh any cons of abstinence, but can we do better than either extreme?

I poked around at some studies, and what I found was interesting. It does seem that 12-step programs tend to outperform things like cognitive behavioral therapy (though there is some disagreement here). But also many of these studies are about whether or not a given treatment achieves abstinence from alcohol, not if it treats the underlying disorder. So I'm not sure what conclusions (if any) can be drawn.

(Ultimately, though, if the 12-step program worked for you, and you're happy with the results and with your life now, that's all that matters! I don't mean to demean what you've accomplished or throw shade on the life you have now. I just think this is a very high-profile societal/health issue that we seem to deal with in a very different way than we deal with others, and that seems strange to me.)

I think Naltrexone can help.

Katy Herzog has written a book about her successful experience: https://www.drinkyourwaysober.com/

> The thing that has always bothered me about the 12-step program is that the end goal seems to always be abstinence, at least in the context of alcoholism.

This is where religion reflects cultural technology that gets lost in the secular translation.

Secularists vastly overestimate man’s control over himself and his world. Most people lack the impulse control to partake in their vices responsibly. That’s why most Americans are fat. We have a world surrounded by temptation—snacks available everywhere—and we tell people to partake responsibly but they can’t do that. Most people don’t have that same relationship with alcohol or cigarettes, but for the many people who do it’s unrealistic for them to think they can just drink responsibly.

> Secularists vastly overestimate man’s control over himself and his world.

I'd prefer if you didn't generalize here, especially since there is no "secularist bible" that lays out what "secularists" believe (or do not believe).

There’s no more a Christian bible in that sense — something that lays out what Christians believe.

“X believes Y ” almost invariably just means “I think most X I’ve come across seem to believe something like Y”. Read it as such.

There's a book that describes what Christians believe about the life of Jesus Christ, and is used by most Christian priests to illustrate and reinforce their homilies and lessons to their lay folk. The same book is widely read by many denominations of Christians as a source of insight into the religious intent of Jesus Christ, even if the conclusions they draw from it may vary.

There are also other books written by both lay authors and those with theological credentials that seek to describe what a "good" Christian should believe and do, though to be fair, none of them are universal across the Christian faith (*).

No such work exists for "secularists".

(*) though fair enough, even "The Bible" doesn't entirely meet that standard given disagreements between both the high level denominations (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) and the subdivisions within each.

More accurately;

  Because the Bible is not a single book but a complex arrangement of at least 66 books (Roman Catholic Bibles include another seven books that Protestants do not recognize) written over many years by multiple authors, the question concerning versions can be complicated. 

  One major division is stems from Old Testament versions; Roman Catholic Bibles are all derived from the Septuagint version (3rd Century BC translation of original Hebrew scriptures into Koine Greek) of the Old Testament, whereas Protestant Bibles returned to the original Hebrew texts.

  There are over 450 known versions of the Bible in English alone.

  While there are estimates of several thousand distinct christian dennominations, the *major* categories are  Catholic (50.1%), Protestant (36.7%), Orthodox, including Eastern and Oriental communions (11.9%), Other (1.30%).

One Christian blog walks through "just" 46 Christian denominations while throwing out an estimate of some 45,000 distinct variations: https://www.bartehrman.com/christian-denominations/

I don't mean to nitpick, I grew up in one of the last "remote areas" of the planet and we were inundated with missionaries (when listed (now not) we had at least a hundred different types of christian mission here) that all had beliefs that only superficially appeared similar.

One wing of my larger extended family is fractured by a run of Christian brothers and sisters all raised catholic, all with military service, and all progressing to different barely compatible denominations and scarcely talking since.

> No such work exists for "secularists".

Secularists also have at least 66 books to draw on for morals, ethics, and common human values. It's debatable whether a book is even required to act with cooperation and respect with most others.

There’s a book. Some Christians have even read it!

That’s about all you can say about the accuracy of the bible in describing what Christians believe.

For instance saying “Christians believe in killing men that have sex with menstruating women” is pretty ridiculous.

The ubiquity of fat religious Americans with no impulse control suggests that religious vs secular is perhaps not the right reference frame to examine this particular issue. Your argument about abstinence being the most practical solution for some people is a reasonable one, no need to join the bandwagon and also make it a pointless culture war issue.

I'm not making a culture war point, I'm comparing philosophies in secular terms. It just so happens that, in America, religious people tend to focus on abstinence and secular people tend to focus on responsible enjoyment.

Most American denominations do not treat food as sinful, so the prevalence of fat religious Americans isn't a rebuttal to my point. If you look at denomations that do, the statistics are quite remarkable. Mormonism, for example, is a remarkable cultural technology: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves....

Another example would be New England congregationalists, who have an ethos that "food is for fuel, not for enjoyment." We have many retirees from that demographic in my town and they're all unusually thin and healthy.

Another example, the Seventh-day Adventists, even studied for their longevity.

FWIW, Mormons and New England Congregationalists are essentially offshoots of the same ethnic group (Puritans), so there may be a genetic confound.

This ignores the cost of living as a mormon for 85 years

According to Pew, Mormons are happier too: https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2025/06/are-latter-day....

Utah is also ranked #1 in upward mobility in the country: https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-5....

So healthier, happier, and with more economic opportunities. All from a group of religious minorities who live in a desert with no natural resources. Quite remarkable.

> who live in a desert with no natural resources. Quite remarkable.

Almost as remarkable as your ability to completely invent something, and then present as a fact. It is similar to how you claimed Trump has a concrete policy of abandoning unfounded foreign policy engagements 2 weeks before he invaded Venezuela on charges the DOJ now admits were fake [0].

The state itself debunks your claim, from geology.utah.gov: "Utah has abundant and diverse energy resources including conventional fossil fuels, unconventional oil shale and oil sand resources, and areas suitable for renewable resource development" [1].

Site selection magazine also disagrees [2].

Utah Business disagrees, too, specifically: "Utah is blessed with abundant natural resources, many of which have played a critical role in shaping our economy" [3].

Another one: "In 2019, Utah remained one of the top 10 U.S. states for metals and industrial minerals production, with continued active exploration" [4].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/trump-venezuela-drug-c...

[1] https://geology.utah.gov/energy-minerals/

[2] https://siteselection.com/got-minerals/

[3] https://www.utahbusiness.com/thought-leadership/2023/07/17/u...

[4] https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnr-newsfeed/utah-one-of-t...

Pretty much. Even to the non-religious, when you look comparatively at secular (which heavily overlaps with: leftist) cultures vs religious ones, one can't help but surmise that the goal was to open the gates to being as degenerate as a creative mind can come up with.

It's rare to met a community of secularists as degenerate as a Christian Brothers community.

eg. and on the record

* https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/02/child-migran...

* https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/ca...

* https://kelsolawyers.com/au/paedophile_offenders/brother-kea...

Still, I concede your point that buggery and physical child abuse at an industrial scale isn't especially creative and just the usual dull grind played out again and again.

I am not saying this to be mean, because these feel like good faith questions. But they also sound like questions rooted in a purely logical view of the world, divorced of experience.

That is, I don't believe it is possible that you've had real world experience with alcoholics, because if you had, it would be obvious why it doesn't work the way you are asking about. Some addictions are just too powerful. It is not a matter of having failed to treat the root cause. It's a matter of acknowledging that, for some people, the only solution to alcohol is not to consume any. It doesn't mean they don't also try to treat and understand deeper emotional reasons for their drinking.

There's lots of research that points to that the brain after addiction just isn't the same as before addiction[1][2]. So while there might have been a root cause before, the effects of addiction is still present even if the root cause isn't an issue anymore.

[1]: https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/08/addiction-sci...

[2]: https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/35742-newly-discovered-brai...

I recently exited an LTR with someone who was in The Program and 6 - 9 yrs sober. The daily meetings routine was certainly help but, to your point, it never addressed the root problem. Tho to be fair, I’m not sure AA was designed for that as the spectrum of underlying problems is many.

In short, my key takeaway (as an outsider) is that with AA it’s helpful to get people sober and there’s value and comfort in that. Unfortunately that comfort has diminishing return. People (e.g., my ex) put in the time (in a comfortable sorta way), but then don’t put in the work (read: progress to address the root problem).

Finally, as an unrelated / random side note, my theory is that if you evaluated late in life alcoholics (read: 30 yo and up) most would test positive for NPD. In the hands of someone suffering from NPD, alcoholism is one hell of a weapon (e.g., manipulation, avoid accountability, etc). Also, within the context of The Program you will never be encouraged to seek help for your NPD.

> test positive for NPD

NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder ?

>> overblown levels of self-importance, arrogance, and selfishness, as well as a lack of empathy for others.

Googled the term, but couldn't exactly see the connection. Fortunately, I currently only interact with a few people I consider alcoholics. AA definitely addressed the lack of empathy, at least.

Look deeper. There are two types of NPD. You found the typical / cliche version. Either way, NPD is ultimately a defense mechanism, which leads to a control mechanism. If you suffer from NPD then “alcoholic” is a great cover and a great weapon. In fact, “alcoholism” is known to correlate with those with NPD.

If you've ever tried to stop doing something, going 90% of the way (e.g "I'll drink one soda per week") is often much harder than quitting entirely. This is particularly true with addiction where neural pathways need to be changed.

12-step programs do treat the underlying illness—fear, resentment and negative coping mechanisms for dealing with those things. That’s why basically all 12-step and addiction-recovery programs are the same.

Life is hard. People fall back on bad habits and many won’t even realize that it’s happening until it their life is in ruins. If that has happened to you there are often no more second chances.

So for some they may be able to recover and have a drink every now and then. However, if your life has become upside down enough to enter a 12-step program, it’s often because there were no other options.

>The thing that has always bothered me about the 12-step program is that the end goal seems to always be abstinence, at least in the context of alcoholism. It seems very strange to me that we treat the symptom, here, not the underlying disease. Abstaining from alcohol certainly does have positive affects on the life of an alcoholic, but the abuse of alcohol is a symptom, not the root issue.

For some people the root problem is simply that their biological reward/motivation system with regards to a substance is just too much. If they drink they can't stop drinking and there's no deeper issue to solve and no cure besides abstinence.

Very few people can get high on heroin or meth and not have it be a permanent problem. When you do it you get addicted and when you get addicted there's no deeper problem than using the substance and needing to stop. The only advice for people is to never touch these things.

Different people have different reactions to different substances. For many, they just need to never do things and that's that. Alcohol is a "never touch" substance for some people.

> Very few people can get high on heroin or meth and not have it be a permanent problem.

Why do you think that's true?

>Why do you think that's true?

Medical literature and talking with people who have done these things and knowing about their usage afterwards. Particularly people who have done lots of different drugs and isolate a few things as just different.

One of the disservices done to young people being taught about drugs is the misrepresentation of the addictive quality of various drugs and lumping everything together.

Sibling comment explains it well enough, but from my own experience: you don’t mess with a few, select drugs. You just don’t. There’s potent synthetics that you can rid yourself of despite their addictive nature. But I don’t know anyone that wasn’t messed up by CM. Honestly, there’s a few drugs you simply shouldn’t bundle with the rest, they’re not even drugs anymore, but pure brain hijacking material.

> the abuse of alcohol is a symptom, not the root issue

You say that as if it's obviously true. Not even a hint at an argument for it. Nor a mention of what you consider the actual root issue.

I've read articles that suggest that the GLP-1 (Ozempic et al.) drug class tends to drastically diminish addictive desire. The problem is that is reduces all desire (including that for food), which can be a bit of an issue.

I would imagine that if there was a drug that removed the addictive desire for alcohol (and/or some other drugs, perhaps), all of us would know its name.

We certainly have drugs that can almost immediately terminate the effect of, for example, opiates, but that has nothing to do with ending addiction to them.

Naltrexone reduces cravings by blocking the reward effect of drugs. Pretty well known I think.

There's also disulfiram (branded as Antabuse), which impedes your body's ability to fully break down alcohol. If you drink, you basically get an instant and devastating hangover (which can even kill you). Apparently it's proscribed in conjunction with naltrexone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfiram

I learned about it on Reddit while clicking the (now removed) "random subreddit" button. I believe it was this subreddit:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Alcoholism_Medication/

I think there are treatments too though. I think there's some drug that can be prescribed that blunts the pleasure of it for those predisposed.

Interesting fun fact: There was a time early in AA history where Bill W wanted to integrate psychedelics into The Program. But was overruled by others within the organization.

I learned about this from Pollan’s “How to Change Your Mind.” I’m sure it’s documented elsewhere.

>Many people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't actually do the 12 steps as designed by Bill Wilson. They don't understand that it's a piece of spiritual technology designed to produce a spiritual awakening and a reorganization of personality.

That can still be OK, as what it is is a mix of empirical and arbitrary man-made alcoholism recovery program, not a God-given spiritual practice or a scientifically necessary one.

People have succesfully recovered with less, as well as more, as well as different steps taken. And inversely, people have failed even though they followed all 12 for a long time.

This makes me curious about adopting the 12 Steps (per @labrador's adaptation above) for chronic procrastination, ADHD-caused issues, etc. Any fellow HN-ers have experience with this?

My personal experience is that it does more harm than good by having meetings constantly remind people that they can easily relapse. It can be good to have structure at the beginning, but at some point the best way to stay sober is just to change your routine, do your best to stay away from triggers, and never pretend that you have an incurable disease.

The evidence on the ground is the exact opposite. Going to meetings reduces the chance of relapse. I've been to meetings all over the country and this is a constant refrain. We are most at danger when we isolate from sober people and forget that we have a problem or think it's cured. There is no cure for a real alcoholic.

Because people become reliant on the system to stay sober. Not to mention the only info on the ground you're getting is from people in the cult.

AA also has the Serenity Prayer (namesake of SerenityOS):

> God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference.

Every time I think of it, I also think of the Man's Prayer recited at the end of every episode of the Red Green Show:

> I am a man. But I can change. If I have to. I guess. Amen!

Sounds very cultish..

It is! If your life is in shambles because you're suffering from alcoholism and you don't want it to be anymore, join the cult who's only requirement is a desire to quit drinking. There's no kool-aid laced with poison in a sucide death pact going on, just a desire to help people live better lives.

Are you a Jordan Peterson fan by any chance? It reads a bit like how he talks (not a criticism just curious)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com