stradi

How can the way we think not be related to neuroscience?

IN sum: it was never really clear from your replies when you thought psychology as an empirically supported" science began. You then said it would be stupid of me to not defend my assertions. To one of my defences you stated that empirically supported psychology began after 1952. To the other study (from 1994) you suddenly changed tack and impliedly accused me of "baiting" you for providing the very defense you had requested. I have no option but to assume you are unable to answer my question.

That would be the "bait" that you yourself demanded, no? "Or we could just leave it there and not defend our assertions. But that would be a stupid." - Phdwannabe See? Well there you go. We're agreeing already. Now, what reply do you have to the contention of heavyweight psychologists Andrew Christensen and Neil Jacobson that modern, empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments did not exist in 1994? The study 'Who--Or What--Can Do Psychotherapy?' by Andrew Christensen and Neil Jacobson in 'Psychological Science,' January 1994; The contention that therapy delivered by nonprofessionals is just as effective as that performed by professionals. By Virginia Rutter, published on March 01, 1994 A major study shows that psychotherapy doesn't work very well at all. Butbefore you jump to simple conclusions, consider this: When it comes to matters of the mind, drug therapy isn't any more effective. The matter is scarcely insignificant. Some 16 million people a year use mental-health services such as psychotherapy. And an estimated 24 million more need help, though many of them get it outside the mental-health system. Now, two heavyweight psychologists have completed a thorough review of the literature. Their findings are eye-opening--though you won't find the mental-health establishment calling a press conference. The two psychologists report that years of experience, professional education, or lawful credentials do not determine the success of psychotherapy. Never mind that millions of dollars are spent each year on studies comparing the approaches of experienced therapists. Never mind that the more experienced, more educated therapists charge more money for their services. The outcome of therapy is not enhanced by training, education, or years of experience. It may not even matter whether there is a live therapist present! http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199403/oops-very-embarrassing-story

The Eysenck study is here: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1953-05921-001 "Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol 16(5), Oct 1952, 319-324. "A survey was made of reports on the improvement of neurotic patients after psychotherapy, and the results compared with the best available estimates of recovery without benefit of such therapy. The figures fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder. In view of the many difficulties attending such actuarial comparisons, no further conclusions could be derived from the data whose shortcomings highlight the necessity of properly planned and executed experimental studies into this important field." 40 references. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved) * Digital Object Identifier: * 10.1037/h0063633"

But where have these clinicians shown psychology to cure mental illness? If we accept that Freudianism is a load of bollocks, we also accept the need for it to have been proven completely independently that psychology does this. Freud proved nothing of the sort, so who did? Not that I can see. Could you quote the bit where you think such a distinction is made? I believe she does. Prolonged therapy is shown to help a bit more than short term therapy, although the greatest rate of improvement is shown in the first month. None of it shown to help very much. Surely it's incumbent on you to show evidence that it does work, as this assertion is in no way proven? I say to you the assumption of clinical psychologists that they can cure mental illness without proof has led to their mistreatment of schizophrenia, pellagra, tourette's and autism (one psychologist decided autism was caused by refrigerator mother's). This led to mnany loving mothers being needlessly blamed and slandered before the founder of the theory was exposed as a fraud. Ok, the study suggesting paraprofessionals may be just as helpful as professionals was part of this literature review: 'Who--Or What--Can Do Psychotherapy?' by Andrew Christensen and Neil Jacobson in 'Psychological Science,' January 1994; "The two psychologists report that years of experience, professional education, or lawful credentials do not determine the success of psychotherapy. Never mind that millions of dollars are spent each year on studies comparing the approaches of experienced therapists. Never mind that the more experienced, more educated therapists charge more money for their services. The outcome of therapy is not enhanced by training, education, or years of experience. It may not even matter whether there is a live therapist present!" "The duo also discussed a 1979 review of 42 studies that compared professional and paraprofessional therapists. Only one component of the study demonstrated superiority of professionals; in 12, paraprofessionals actually helped people more. The remaining 29 found no differences." "Over the years, the data from the troublesome 1979 review have been reanalyzed using more stringent standards; each time the results have come back stronger for paraprofessionals. One study concluded: "Clients who seek help from paraprofessionals are more likely to achieve resolution of their problem than those who consult professionals." "Observes Christensen: "With most professions it is very clear there is a specific skill involved, but in psychotherapy it is not clear that the skills of the therapist are any more helpful than the skills of people with life experience in dealing with a problem."" "A new study of depression treatment by the National Institute of Mental Health puts the success rate--for drugs or psychotherapy--at 19 to 30 percent. "My mother wonders what I get paid for if this is the best I can do," quips Jacobson." http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199403/oops-very-embarrassing-story

Hardly. Where exactly has psychotherapy been proven to work? Hmm.. no: "A survey was made of reports on the improvement of neurotic patients after psychotherapy, and the results compared with the best available estimates of recovery without benefit of such therapy. The figures fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder. In view of the many difficulties attending such actuarial comparisons, no further conclusions could be derived from the data whose shortcomings highlight the necessity of properly planned and executed experimental studies into this important field. " Will search for one. Never said it did? Page 11 of this article: http://tanadineen.com/writer/articles/ForDistribution/Skeptic.pdf Tana Dineen takes the APA's Consumer Reports claims re. effectiveness of psychotherapy to pieces. Surely they wouldn't have to resort to dishonest reporting like this if their claims were genuine?

Gosh, you sound quite abrupt. Was it you who minused my comment? Clinical psychology was founded on the professional fraud of Sigmund Freud, who publically claimed his case study patients had been cured, while privately admitting that they were nothing of the sort in correspondence with his fiancee. What does clincial psychology specifically do? Nothing. It's founded on unproven theories and "proved" with self-validating reasoning. Specific studies: Eysenck (a clinical psychologist) showed in a study that the proportion of people who improved in psychotherapy was identical to the proportion of people who improved on their own (albeit over a longer period). The American Association of Psychologists President once referenced a study at an annual meeting of their association,which showed all you needed to be a good therapist was an empathetic character. The empathetic person would be good without all the supposedly high-powered education. My friend's friend is a social psychologist at Rutgers who agreed with this conclusion. Beyond empathy, he thought the rest was nonsense. Like his example: drumming your fingers on the table demonstrates a masturbatory complex. Its nonsense, but as "scientific" as anything Freud did: just the latest vogue in speculation.

I've been impressed by some of the social psychologists like Zimbardo, although I'm not sure what he's doing is science. "Clinical psychology" is a nonsense.

Sorry pioneer, you've obviously put a lot of work into that answer but it doesn't really address my point. What evidence is there that clinical psychology is an efficacious treatment for mental illness?

But that's why I keep asking: what is the basis of clincial psychology's supposed efficacy today? How is it necessarily efficacious in a way that, say, talking to a good friend will not be?

But that means it's a subjective definition, and therefore not scientific. Someone may appear to have no reason to be depressed yet have a physical disorder which has depression as a symptom (like typhus or lyme's disease, for example). Could you give me an example of how this works in practice? FWIW I believe in business psychology, ... It's clinical psychology whose efficacy I doubt. As a palliative measure, right?

OK... 1) I'm not sure I agree with your definition of abnormal psychology. For example, "long periods of discomfort" might be an entirely rational response to discomforting circumstances. 2) You asked why I made an ad hominem attack on Freud - I replied his dishonesty is critical to understanding why his work was a failure. You then make a different point "Still doesn't make the entire field of psychology wrong". It calls into question the validity of the scientific basis of psychotherapy, supposedly established by Freud. 3)"Of course psychological experiments are going to be done by psychologists". The data can - and shoulod - be analysed by people who are in a position to be objective and unbiased in respect of their conclusions. The experiments also need to contain a control group and a clear definition of success. 4) "Could I get a link to that study." I've no link to the study itself; you can see it quoted in "Psychology Today" here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199403/oops-very-embarrassing-story?page=2 Neither... is psychotherapy supposed to restore, say, depressed patients to wellness? If so, by what mechanism is it supposed to achieve this? Hmm.. no. I'm not saying clinical psychology is unscientific because its made "mistakes". I'm saying it's unscientific because there's no identifiable scientific basis for it. Whereas there is in clinical medicine... you get a skin infection, you take antibiotics. You get asthma, you take ventolin. There's an identifiable scientific basis upon which the medicine remedies the ill.

Well then, please state it. In this case, that fact he committed profesional fraud. Whether he believer what he taught or not, he deliberately falsified his case histories. That's what I mean by lying and committing professional fraud. He was publicly claiming his case history patients were cured but privately admitting to close associates that they were anything but. Take Anna O - the founding case of psychoanalysis. At Freud's insistence, he and Breur fabricated the case, claiming she was fully cured. But in reality she was committed to an asylum. Freud told his fiancee in a letter that Breur thought she would never be well. He did the same thing with Dora (a mess when she died, but perfectly cured according to Freud). Same thing with Ratman (a mess when Freud left him as privately admitted by Freud, but Freud publicly claimed he had engineered "the perfect restoration of the fellow's personality"). These were not "honest mistakes". These were deliberate falsifications. But he had patients telling him time again they didn't share his sick fantasies. He ignored them. He was raised by a nanny and it's not rare for orphans or people not raised by there parents to have sexual desire towards them when they meet. But many of those studies appear to have been done without controls, by psychologists who were already invested in psychotherapy for a living. They weren't independent. NIMH claimed a mere 19% - 30% of depressives got better from either psychotherapy or SSRI's. Surely psychotherapy would have a satisfactory cure rate if it actually worked? What is the scientific basis of clinical psychology? Was it actually supposed to be achieving? ... What?

No... how are you defining "Abnormal Psychology"? Because it wasn't just his methodology that was wrong. He was a Professional Liar. He perpetrated a Professional Fraud. Well yeah, that's a fraction of it. He assumed everyone had his own incestuous desires, his theory of repression etc. Because clinical psychology's status as a cure for mental illness has no basis in scientific fact. It's a mass assumption that it cures mental illness... where is the evidence? This is why I asked above: as we appear to be agreed Freud's psychotherapy wasn't valid in the first place, on what basis are people assuming psychotherapy's become scientific since? I know nothing about the humours, but Medical treatments today are based on scientific fact. That's the difference. I quite agree Jung was a quack... but why you've mentioned him out of the blue or added "Just because he makes people feel cuddly inside doesn't make him right. If you base your facts on what makes you feel good write a self-help book, not a scientific paper." is a mystery to me.

Yep - Frederick Crews - "Unauthorised Freud". How are you defining "abnormal psychology"? Some apt quotes about Freud here: How Freud really thought about his clients behind their backs: "He compared himself to a lion in a cartoon he saw. The lion is checking his watch at feeding time and asks, "where are my Negroes?" Freud said his patients were his "Negroes". (Jones p. 116)" How much concern Freud really had for his clients: "Turning down an invitation to travel, Freud wrote that a wealthy woman client "might get well during my absence."" "The philosopher Karl Popper said Freudian psychoanalysis is as devoid of scientific method as palm reading." Freud's involvement with the Sabbatean movement: "Freud discussed Kabbalah with a rabbi Chaim Bloch in 1920. The rabbi told Prof. Bakan that the two men argued when Freud proposed that Moses had been an Egyptian pharaoh, not a Jew. Freud stormed off, leaving the rabbi alone in his study. It was then that Bloch saw books on the shelves which identified Freud as a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, (the Sabbatean founder.) " http://www.henrymakow.com/freud_sabbatean.html