He quotes:
There are no statistics regarding AA. Therefore we can't compare AA to other programs using statistics. Sad but true.So when you assert that 'the data' showed BIN was more effective than AA, you have actually asserted nothing.
The BIN reports 53% but we have no number for AA. It is just plugged in at some point randomly. Also, the criteria for effective treatment in the BIN program was 3 less drinks per week. For an alcoholic that would be a meaningless difference. (although that is a topic for the merits of that particular method)
The point of our discussion, I thought was to discuss different treatments and the pro's and con's of each. That has nothing to do with statistics which, as you can see don't add up to much. Statistics can prove anything.Or, as in this case, nothing. And hyperlinks are certainly a good thing, but if they aren't presented as part of a discussion of some sort, they're just ..... links.
I just got the feeling you threw some studies my way and told me to read them. That isn't 'intelligent discussion' to me. It's intelligent enough, but the discussion part is lacking.I guess I was thinking more along the lines of why BIN was better than AA in one area or another or SOS would appeal to this type of person.....you know a 'discussion' on the 'merits' of each.
The best you can get from statistics is how many people stopped drinking.If you want to go strictly by statistics then death is the best treatment method. 100% success rate and it's free and available to everyone.
Obviously death has less merits than some of the other methods listed though.
So... I think I'd rather go for the 5% treatment A.A. has to offer than TJ's 100% recovery rate.
In fact, you can go ahead and put me on record as saying, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy".
-McGowdog
No comments:
Post a Comment