I'm a little confused. I've been to AA and other 12 step programs following the same format. I've never felt specific pressure to have a specific higher power, as they seem to communicate a higher power is whatever you want (the group itself can be your higher power, as it is more powerful than yourself in terms of support; although I understand it does have underlying Christian principles.

Isn't AA really simply a support group? How important is the scientific process here? If a person stands up, admits he or she is an alcoholic, and gets a chip for being sober for 2 months, who cares if the process didn't strictly follow a scientific methodology?

If AA is a cult, than maybe Psych Central is also a cult. I know the philosophy of admitting you are helpless to solve the problem is a hard one for some, but, isn't it obvious that if you haven't solved it, you are pretty helpless at that point. I don't know, maybe I'm over-simplifying, but it seems to be teaching just a basic concept of humility with human frailty. Maybe the issue is one of ego, in terms of wanting to say "I used a tool and did it myself", not, I'm helpless, please help me. I understand that, the U.S. definitely socializes (especially men) to be self-sufficient, and the concept of reaching outside oneself seems foreign to that socialization.

I think anything can be over-done; if someone goes to 80 meetings a month at the expense of other responsibilities, maybe, after 3 years, there's too much dependancy, but, if meetings help someone to stay sober, where it wasnt' possible before, it's a positive thing, and if it doesn't work for an individual, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad organization.

In the end, admitting you are powerless to stop an addiction is not the same as not taking responsibility for one's problems, and I think that taking responsibility to do what is necessary to stay sober is the important issue.