12 step programs work for about 40% of the people who participate, and a large portion of that success is attributed to the availability of such programs. [2]
I believe logic has it’s place. Like a 12 step program, it won’t work for everyone, but there is a place for rational approaches to treatment of addictions.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_...
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evidence-based-livin...
My knowledge of them is very limited to pop culture (like its depiction in TV shows such as The Wire, Breaking Bad and Grey's Anatomy), but their depictions always seemed annoying to me because they are all about god, submission to a "higher power", and "the original sin"/"flawed humans" in one way or the other. If you are actively atheist, you will find this approach off-putting and it won't help you.
Reading their brochure, however, it seems they are effectively not a 12-step program, since they ditch or ignore most of the steps (a must if they want to remain religion-neutral, since about half the steps mention god, a higher power or prayer in one way or the other).
From their brochure:
> "What about the 12 Steps? How can you be A.A. without following them? A.A. co-founder Bill W.’s thinking evolved on many issues [...] he wrote that, “so long as there is the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most antisocial, the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and announce to us that a new Alcoholic Aonymous group has been formed [...] these rampant individuals are still an AA group if they think so!”"
That's a very lax definition. It's very hard to measure effectiveness with this...
I'm not sure how standard AA can help an atheist, since about half their 12-steps mention god, submitting to a higher power or praying. If atheists say it helps them, I believe them -- who am I to doubt it? But I don't understand the principle at work.
Being willing to alter your deepest held beliefs predisposes you to altering other things about your life, from big things like moving across town to small things like taking a lunch break at a different time.
There's also a social element that I think is hard to reproduce in a secular context. Convincing a bunch of adults to coordinate their schedules is much easier if they believe that they will go to heaven if they do so. Furthermore, you already have a public building as a location to hold meetings. Hell, even the architecture of a lot of churches is awe-inspiring. They're physically designed to be these places where you come to terms with your faults (sins) and begin to deal with them. Of course, that also means that their design is religious, with religious iconography in the stained windows and on the walls.
Just wanted to offer a different perspective.
> we don't need to be implicitly told by others that all such reasoning about how or when to go about quitting is nonsense, that we "should just do it".
Never said anything like that or even tried to imply it.
I personally struggled with smoking for many years, and I don't wish that or any addiction struggle upon anyone. And because I've been there, I know logic and reasoning don't cut it. In my case, what pushed me to quit smoking was someone very close to me who helped me do it with some tough love and a lot of support. Definitely did not "just did it", but also reason didn't really play a central role either.
Also no one said addicts were akin to blind rats in a cage. You might actually want to go and read about the rat park experiment. It basically suggests that our environment and overall social situation are way more important factors in triggering and sustaining addictions, rather than any individual trait or pre-condition.
That said, I agree that our social situation and environment have a lot to do with addiction, and definitely think this applies to cigarettes as well. Moving with the same thread in mind, this is also why I think attempting to quit, either cold turkey or incrementally, is usually better when one has the time and lack of other major stresses to seriously try it.
I've had many periods of being near broke, barely making ends meet with work that is underpaid and difficulty focusing on the steps necessary to improve my situation. In such situations, smoking has been one of the small dirty pleasures that helps ease these anxieties. And if focusing is already difficult in such a crucial moment, well you can imagine trying to hold onto focus while also trying to quit.
None of this is to downplay how dangerous it is to smoke under almost any circumstances, but i'd definitely say that there are both better moments and worse moments for trying to leave it behind.
Yes, it is. Believe it or not, I described it. I wasn't describing the logic of being addicted, or of how to overcome addiction, but of conditions that affect the decision to try to quit.
> Look at the 12 steps program of AA, there are no "thinking" or "logic" steps.
You're either deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the 12 step program. They are nearly entirely about reasoning (even if you don't particularly subscribe to the suggested reasoning).
Addiction makes you crave something in an irrational way.
Logic and thinking are not the proper tools to make you stop the craving.
Look at the 12 steps program of AA, there are no "thinking" or "logic" steps.
Recovering from addiction, as well as getting addicted, are mostly social and biological processes.
You might want to read about the Rat Park experiment, here's a quick link: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/what...