There are any number of rational reasons for someone to still be going to AA. For example:
1) They like the coffee
2) they like the people
3) they haven't had a chance to look at the research on its efficacy or lack thereof themselves
4) they think they've found a factor the research overlooked about why it would work for some, hurt others, and *look* statistically neutral when you average those groups together, but that they're in one of the "works" subgroup
5) their family members believe in AA and will get off their back if they go
6) well, I can't think of a 6, but there may be a rational 6 I've overlooked.
I don't really have a problem with someone, for example, thinking a black cat crossing their path, or breaking a mirror, or the number 13, is bad luck. Or being leery of those things personally.
I don't really have a problem with someone, for example, thinking eating purple jellybeans is gonna cure his cold and downing a whole bag of the things when he first gets the sniffles.
I really don't have a problem with the attitude of, "I just want to try it and what the hell, it can't hurt."
I do have a problem with people coming out and affirmatively saying that black cats or 13 really are unlucky and purple jelly beans really do cure colds.
There's a big difference in, "What the hell, can't hurt, *I* want to do this," versus, "This works."
Even when it's said as, "This works for me."
I don't really have a problem with, "I feel like this helps me, I don't know for sure whether it really does or not, but I feel like it does so I'm going to do it anyway."
I do have a problem with, "This works for me. This helps me," when all the hard evidence is that it just doesn't work.
For me, the admission that one *could* be wrong about whether it's actually helping you, but that for your own reasons, including *feeling like* it's helping you, you want to do it anyway---that admission that the objective facts don't support you and you're taking a certain leap of faith makes all the difference in the world.
"It helps me" as a statement of fact implies that it works and could help others.
"I feel like it helps, but I know I could be wrong" is entirely different---it admits that there are facts out there that other people might want to take into consideration in deciding what they're going to do.
"It helps me" is a testimonial.
"I feel like it helps, but I could be wrong" is a statement of personal preference.
That's how it comes across to me, and that's why one version of that statement punches my buttons and gets my back up, and the other version just gets me to smile and nod and think, "Cool. Ain't nobody's business if you do."
One statement *to me* tastes like fraud, and the other tastes like a simple personal preference about how to spend your time or cope with life or whatever.
I'm a writer. I deal with tiny shades of meaning in different ways of saying something all day long. It's what I do. Sometimes if I'm typing fast and don't proofread, it doesn't come through very well. :smile:
Anyway, those tiny differences in where someone's coming from make a difference *to me* in whether I find what they're saying irritating, or instead find it just a mildly interesting statement about their personal preferences.
That's just how the different ways of someone saying why they go come across to me.
Timoclea
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist