It is difficult to tell if those are the words of the NPR author or Lance dodes who wrote the book, but it directly contradicts your statement
"2. No one is dismissing the idea of doing 12 steps"
My message was less a general response
Vs a note to any struggling HNs that 12-step shouldn't be dismissed out of hand
My upbringing, education, peers, research into the data generally would have had me write off AA
Glad I didn't and gave it a try (after trying many other things)
The concern I have with making it overly analytical like the HN crowd tends to do, we ignore a good chunk of psychological impact that purely data-driven statements can have. Instead of framing the discussion of "this doesn't work, we need to do something else" the conversation really should be "this works for some people but we can do better - we need to invest in it and figure it out."
That simple flip is easy and acknowledges that people have had success with this and people will continue to do so. It also sends the message that there's no reason to skip this entirely if you are looking for help.
1. The data is somewhat overwhelming that the rates of success aren't 25-30% as you said, but closer to 7%.[1] This puts it in roughly the same category as no
2. No one is dismissing the idea of doing 12 steps, but 12 steps is often court mandated.
3. 12 Step has more than passing connections to "faith-based" treatments. This is a problem when it's court mandated.
4. Instead of a problem with the program, they categorize inability to complete them as moral failures on the part of the person in treatment.
No one thinks that 12 step treatments shouldn't be an option, but they're not effective evidence based treatment options.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-surpr...