You make many assumptions. Let me pose a question to you: If I have no experience with this sort of problem, why do you suppose I take such an interest and hold such strong viewpoints?

As far as your “war stories” go – I am glad you found your way out of that lifestyle. Many others with similar – or worse – circumstances are able to find their way out without joining the cult-like organization of AA. Many more are probably made worse by internalizing AA’s belief (shared by many, if not most psychiatrists and mental health professionals) that addiction is a “life-long brain disease.” It is not. You mentioned schizophrenia, which I also have a deep, personal interest in (I’ll let you do some guesswork on that too). I don’t want to get too far along into another tangential argument, but most of what is in the DSM V, including schizophrenia, is not disease. More specific to your point, a diagnosis of schizophrenia – and virtually every other “mental illness” is subjective. As a matter of fact, the concept of the disease itself was subjectively determined. I’ve encountered all the hullabaloo about “brain scans…” as well. It is unconvincing to those with a rigorous mind.

Do you bother to consider Tom’s presentation ?

Mary Are you an expert on AA ? I look forward to your credentials.

antidote ? If I say that I am here today because of Unicorns and Karaoke …….. is that a good enough antidote ?

I would assume by your response that you work in the field devoted to the study of mental disorders. I understand that people who work in this field do change the names and or definitions of what they consider to be mental diseases or disorders. Case in point, schizophrenia, which was considered and called a mental disease back in my childhood days is now called a mental disorder. So….?
My definition, your definition aside, my point is that I will and do defend 12 step programs like AA. If there are suffering people who find sobriety outside of the AA 12 step program, good for them, I commend them and God bless them.
The difference is I do not put them down or call them names (cult) or spout out to the world on the internet that they do not work. What would I accomplish by doing so? Hubris? Bravado? If I were to say, “Look at me world, I am not an addict, I have never been an addict. I like to dismiss some forms of addiction treatment and I call them derogatory names because they are not the kind of treatments I agree with.”
Really? That would be the pinnacle of self aggrandizement. In my childhood it was called false pride. To call a group of people who come together to help one another with God’s love and understanding a cult? You might as well call every Christian church a cult or any self help group a cult. Jesus said, “Wherever 2 or more are gathered in my name, there I am also.” That is well enough for me.
I

Last thing, the guest snickers at the fact that AA hasn’t changed since the founding and the original (first 164 pages) text has not changed. Wow, they left a great document alone and the society of sober alcoholics flourished. Imagine if our government leaders had taken that same attitude with constitution. Tom, you are a good dude, us alkies are just a bit defensive over the program that saved our lives.

If you can ‘just stop’, you are not a real alcoholic.

If you want to bake a cake, it takes effort but you have to follow all directions on the box. If you do not, you will probably not have a cake. So it is with taking action via the 12 Steps of AA..

Tom Woods really does a phenomenal job with his podcasts and this one was an outlier. Although Tom will probably not circle back to this thread nor want to debate me on his show, this is the only topic I would love to debate Tom on but I would not be able to due to the traditions of AA. How could I, as a recovering alcoholic speak on behalf of the AA program, who delegated me the authority? Nobody, so this is where it ends. Isn’t it funny how the “establishment” of AA as the guest calls it, has no spokes-person like every other organization. It is one of the only true examples of bottom up governing I have seen. In a perfect world, I wish Tom would read the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” and ask sober members about the structure of the society. Tom would love it. I am surprised no libertarians have done a case study on the autonomy of the groups. It’s probably better that AA flies under the radar as it does so well. After someone who is suffering tries the guests “magic pill” approach (the easier softer way) and hopefully they are still alive, they will hopefully find their way to the rooms and they can be greeted with love, tolerance and acceptance. The funniest part is that it even says in “how it works” half measures availed us nothing.

If you want arguments they aren’t terribly hard to provide. Quoting statistics is meaningless when there is no scientific method being followed, and it’s impossible to gather accurate data about a group where people are anonymous and don’t want to admit they are in the group due to social pressure. About the only thing I agreed with the guest on is there should be less stigma, because then actual data would be easy to gather.

Your guest presents some interesting ideas about the origin of addiction. But his critique of AA is not convincing. When quoting the 5-8% number he didn’t even compare it to the success rate for the general population, which would also be difficult to measure. The only really meaningful evidence he could bring forth is Bill W’s death from emphysema, but that’s not enough to convict AA beyond a reasonable doubt. I think you should take a less biased approach when discussing the painful and complex subject of addiction.

Finally, you didn’t mention any of the anarchistic aspects of AA. For example, the lack of central leaders yet still managing to organize clubs and meetings. If you talked to some of the people in it you might be able to appreciate the ways they have developed to deal with sociopaths trying to take over and rule their decentralized, informal society.

“Unscientific, outdated, unregulated”, don’t these sound eerily like the arguments Keynesians raise against the Austrian School?
I would think that 12-step groups would be of particular interest to any Libertarian because they are perhaps the best working blueprint available for studying the effectiveness of a stateless society. 12-step groups are founded on spiritual principles, they are not governed and members are only disciplined by the natural consequences of their individual actions.
Although I am disappointed by the way this subject was handled, I am not surprised that you are not well informed about 12-step groups. Very few people will take an interest in them unless they need one; but I would recommend learning what you can about them before commenting on their effectiveness.
I would strongly suggest reading the literature of Alcoholics Anonymous or other 12-step groups directly instead of relying on biased interpretations of anecdotal evidence. In particular I would suggest the book Twelve Steps & Twelve Traditions. It is clear, concise, and reads like a collection of Leonard Read essays.

Dr. Dodes would seem to have his own issues worthy of discussion. Anyone who accepted the claims of psychoanalysis (the short term for what Sigmund Freud was peddling) has much to answer for. Psychoanalysis has no scientific basis. It seems to be based on a handful of very questionable cases that Freud seemed will into existence and promulgate to a gullible Jewish community.

Thank you Tom Woods for this podcast with Dr. Dodes. My story is in this book, and the most important thing to walk away with is that we need to focus on and help people, in other ways, that were harmed by the proselytization by AAers(and staunch supporters) and people the program failed and stand up for them in that journey without AA 12 step etc.
.