Is Psychology A Science?

[Ringer]

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. "

 

'But even the much more modest conclusions that the figures fail to show any favorable effects of psychotherapy should give pause to those who would wish to give an important part in the training of clinical psychologists to a skill the existence and effectiveness of which is still unsupported by any scientifically acceptable evidence.'

Seems he makes a distinction between psychotherapy and other clinical practices. Back then psychotherapy was not the broad term that it is today; it was the couch therapists method that is so often seen in movies, which is, as I said, Freudian.

 

 

Page 11 of this article: http://tanadineen.co...ion/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?

She doesn't really take their claims apart. They claim prolonged therapy helps more than short term therapy. Although Consumer Reports misrepresent the numbers with the use of that graph it still doesn't show how psychology is not a science.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Ringer

[stradi]

Show me your source. Actually, don't. It doesn't matter. Because no clinician I know cares about Freud, or practices a mode of psychology which would be remotely recognizable to him.

 

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?

 

'But even the much more modest conclusions that the figures fail to show any favorable effects of psychotherapy should give pause to those who would wish to give an important part in the training of clinical psychologists to a skill the existence and effectiveness of which is still unsupported by any scientifically acceptable evidence.'

Seems he makes a distinction between psychotherapy and other clinical practices. Back then psychotherapy was not the broad term that it is today; it was the couch therapists method that is so often seen in movies, which is, as I said, Freudian.

 

Not that I can see. Could you quote the bit where you think such a distinction is made?

 

 

She doesn't really take their claims apart. They claim prolonged therapy helps more than short term therapy. Although Consumer Reports misrepresent the numbers with the use of that graph it still doesn't show how psychology is not a science.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Kindly demonstrate this assertion with evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Edited March 17, 2011 by stradi

[stradi]

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"

[PhDwannabe]

Modern, empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments did not exist in 1952. You're not criticizing chemistry, you're criticizing alchemy.

 

Stradi, I've been through all of this with you in other threads. I'm not taking the bait again.

[stradi]

 

Stradi, I've been through all of this with you in other threads. I'm not taking the bait again.

 

 

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?

 

 

Modern, empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments did not exist in 1952. You're not criticizing chemistry, you're criticizing alchemy.

 

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

Edited May 7, 2011 by stradi

[stradi]

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.

[petersam]

Dopo le droghe come Viagra e Cialis ha rivoluzionato il trattamento di disfunzione sessuale maschio verso la fine degli anni 90, un turbine di neve dei test clinici sono stati condotti in donne nelle speranze che le droghe potrebbero fare lo stessi per fare rivivere l'azionamento di sesso diminuente della donna.

 

cialis