AA Article Becomes Relevant to Psychology in General

I was reading an article in the July edition of WIRED magazine when I began to notice some vague mention of things I've been thinking about for a long time. They caught my attention for a number of relevant reasons. The article is "The Secret of AA" by Brendan I. Koerner, appearing in WIRED "pattern recognition"|Jul2010. The article references several studies and meta-studies of the Alcoholics Anonymous and various alcohol addiction recovery programs. As some of you may know by now, I'm interested in treatment for addicts in particular besides my interest in psychology in general.

In summary, the 12 steps of AA start with admitting loss of control over drinking and consigning oneself to a higher power, then end with a lifelong commitment to helping others through the process. In comparison to other methods (I will loosely conclude based on information contained in the article) AA has a roughly equal effect of reducing alcohol consumption among alcoholics, but a higher percent of members are able to quit completely.

In order to give my readers a better sense of understanding about the thoughts I am having, I'll try to describe the differences between AA and psychologist developed treatment methods. AA covers a broad spectrum of loose ideas and influence patterns (if unintentionally) while most treatments focus on just one cause and effect. For example, one cognitive behavioral therapy teaches addicts to avoid situations that encourage or stimulate them to respond by drinking. A motivational enhancement therapy emphasizes a person's reasons to be sober. AA, on the other hand, targets (again, unintentionally) specifically the parts of the brain affected the most by alcohol abuse. The group setting of AA helps rebuild the prefrontal cortex (helps regulate behavior) and simultaneously operates as an external surrogate system of regulation. Because AA isn't led by a professional, members develop a better sense of kinship with one another; which essentially acts as a more powerful positive peer pressure to stop drinking. The closer the relationships, the more likely the program is to work for a particular individual. Another thing AA does is encourage members to make amends with all the people they've hurt. This greatly reduces stress by relieving and preventing as much guilt as possible. That's the rough version, I encourage you to read the article or do your own research on the matter.

The point of all this, essentially, is to give you a glimpse of a possibility that seems to be oft overlooked. People are different. A one-size-fits-all hat only works because it's adjustable. Psychological treatment is the same way. In clinics, therapists will cycle through various treatment plans outlined by several different theories of psychology because some of them will work for some people, while the same ones won't work at all for others.

That's all well and good, but shouldn't that little bit of data have a greater impact on the direction of research? The way I hear it, scientists across all disciplines take pride in the idea that they are searching for the one all inclusive theory of their field. Usually that means admitting data that was discovered previously. Psychology is a VERY young science. The only math involved is statistics. That said, all the rest of it can be boiled down to a very large group of ideas of which the only evidence for or against is purely statistical (at least in general). The biological model has the distinct benefit of discretely measurable variables. It also has the disadvantage of being nearly impossible to interpret except in a non-specific manner. Neurotransmitters only come in so many flavors but somehow account for all the thoughts we have, both consciously and sub-consciously. None of them seem to have an exclusive purpose. Brain chemistry is as yet too complex to unravel; we've hardly even cracked the genetic code, why should we expect to understand "thought" so precisely?

Maybe now you see the problem. Psychology isn't as simple as cause and effect. It's the accumulation of "genetic predispositions" and "past experiences" in addition to "current circumstances" and "biological influences". Sure, we can loosely associate a particular mental condition with a particular event in the past in cases of PTSD and similar afflictions. We can link impairments to certain genetic anomalies like Huntington's and Down Syndrome. Until we were looking for them, these anomalies were unheard of. PTSD used to be called "shell shock" and "combat fatigue" before we decided it was worth checking out. My experience in such matters is small, to be sure, but it seems to me that there is far too much of the picture still missing to be making many solid conclusions. For example, given two people in similar situations with similar backgrounds, can we say for sure why one has developed Dissociative Identity Disorder and the other has not? Do we need to develop some theory of "mental constitution" to account for the soldiers that DON'T get PTSD? Still our ideas are too vague to have much substance. Even physics is still changing, with new discoveries shocking the whole community often enough to disturb the relatively slow, lumbering beast of popular media on a fairly regular basis.

I find this post getting unbearably long, while outlining a depressingly small amount of my thought. It's also getting late, and I have class tomorrow. Let me summarize to say that the various theories of psychology are very much closer to philosophies than sciences so far as I see it today; and as such, ought to be combined into an all-inclusive philosophy that recognizes the inherent complexity of the system and makes a point of evaluating the interactions between factors rather than trying to separate them. Psycho-dynamics had one big point right: the history influences the present and both influence the future. Biology has it's place; brain chemistry is indicative of abnormality and altering it can prove beneficial. Cognitive theory has high points as well: thinking is important in and of itself. Humanistic and Existential theories make important (if mostly philosophical) points: the individuals and their interactions with others have influence on the individual's thought's and feelings. Behaviorists rely on immediate observables like environmental factors (c'mon, did we REALLY ever believe that the environment isn't a BIG influence?). There's plenty more but I think you get the point.

You can take Tarzan out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of Tarzan.