Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jemmons

(711 posts)
9. More answers....
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:21 PM
Jul 2016

Im not anti AA. I dont know enough about AA to really have an informed opinion. I know that they are not currently offering an effective and acceptable solution for any and all addicted people. And I dont believe that they have a solution that solid science cant find a better alternative to.

I have a deep respect for faith and I dont share the arrogant attitude towards religion that you find in some academics and a lot of scientists. If people can find value in a faith based method im all for it. I dont think that AA was intended as solid science and I also dont think that AA by a miraculous chance event has managed to become solid science quite unintended.

I think that science will have a better solution in the long run, even if it might not be the case right now.

I understand addiction from a cognitive science point of view. That means the usual bio-psycho-social model as a starting point, but perhaps with more emphasis on the biological part than most psychologists and more on psychology than most psychiatrists.

I grew up with addiction as a constant companion and that might color my thinking, but im surprised that anybody would not find addiction the most interesting you could ever talk about.

Latest Discussions»Support Forums»Addiction & Recovery»Is addiction really a dis...»Reply #9