I beleive there is still research being done involving csf to find biomarkers to help with proper diagnosis or even better categorization of mental illness.
The minute it is a physical disease, it is no longer the domain of psychologists, and in many cases, should not be the domain of psychiatrists.
Nor any other faith healers (despite psychiatrists dubious ability to prescribe).
For instance, if an organic brain disease, than it should go to neurologist,
If a hormone imbalance, an endocrinologist,
If cancer, an oncologist,
If cardiac related a cardiologist, and so forth.
1 Like
Thatâs a whole different kettle of fish. They have a pretty entrenched discipline so good luck with taking away their meal ticket.
I get it.
The Christian elements at my university look shocked and pitying when I say out loud in public situations that I am an atheist, or make expressions that show no regard, about God, other than a literary device, or symbol.
My Muslim colleagues, even more so.
I get the same reaction from the psychologists, when I point out that their discipline has the research reliability of horoscopes, or tea leaf reading to predict, or placebo to treat.
But, that is what the data says, Jim.
2 Likes
The 2021 study for which the abstract stated âat least oneâ abnormality was detected in 40% of patients.
EXACTLY. There is no room in modern society for âsoul healersâ.
And now weâre getting to the truth. We have a fake medical establishment operating in America with nothing but faith, and apparently clairvoyance and telepathy. Ironically, one of the first things they ask is âDo you think you can read minds?â
Thatâs ironic, alright.
I donât think itâs fake.
I think mental illness is a real disease. It just needs improved methods of diagnosis and treatment.
Doctors at one point used to prescribe cigarettes.
Give morphine to babies for collic.
Use chloroform to treat asthma.
And bunch of other dumb shit.
Some mental illnesses are real and some are not. And they have no clue which is which, or how to treat any of them effectively, making the field fraudulent.
Psychology is about as legitimate or not, as religious and religion attempts to address mental well being.
It should not be considered a medical field anymore than Christian Science or Scientology should.
It is yet another desperate attempt to understand the mind, and minds vary widely from individual to individual.
It is a pseudo-science, and an art, not a science.
And psychologists, whatever their intentions, like clergy, make their living primarily by offering placebo cures to vulnerable and often desperate people.
There are replicating psychological experiments.
They do exist. You donât have to throw baby out with bath water. The fecal swamp the baby is wallowing needs to be changed and sterilized.
I would like to think that people have good intentions, when they contribute to the popular social narrative of encouraging people to go to church, or to go to a psychologist, when they are in mental distress, or feel sad, or depressed, or have anxiety, etc.
But, the data shows:
- that psychotherapy does not do better than placebo,
and - That 5% to 12% of psychology clients or patients get sexually abused by their therapists.
and - When psychology clients report to a new therapist that a previous therapist sexually abused them, the majority report that they have been sexually abused by more than one therapist.
and - A certain percentage of psychologists also financially abuse their patients, meaning they take advantage of compromised patients to get financial benefits in excess of regular therapy fees.
and - A certain percentage of psychologists fail to keep their patientâs information private.
So, one has to ask is a 1 in 10 chance of getting sexually abused,
plus an additional risk of financial scams,
plus an additional risk of oneâs privacy being compromised,
worth taking for an expected therapeutic benefit of placebo?
Perhaps if one factors in the entertainment value to pass the time,
Although conversely, in many cases, one could also say it is a waste of time.
But either way, that is a horrible risk / reward except for outliers and exceptions to the rule.
So, people should think twice before repeating the almost religiously repeated mantra, of âyou should see a psychologistâ as if the base case assumption is that seeing a psychologist is a good thing, especially for a vulnerable person, to do.
Because for most people it provides placebo value despite the time and money expense, and for 1 out of 10 of those who see a psychologist, it results in a sexual assault, and for others, being financially exploited, etc.
1 Like
What I usually here is âcounseling or therapyâ, not âpsychologistâ.
Some are both, though.
Iâve been to counseling 3 times in my life. Each time was helpful to me personally, in dealing with my life situations at the time, which were somewhat causally linked.
It can be good and helpful to have someone who is a professionally trained listener.
Human are individuals, however, patterns of behavior and feeling are shared by all of us humans, I would think.
Placebo would be doing nothing, right ?
I think the primary problem is, as you alluded to more than once, treating counseling/therapy as some sort of double-blind testable drug experiment.
Perhaps you are holding it to a different and inapplicable standard?
Some people get benefit from talking to a pastor.
Some people do get benefit from speaking to a psychologist.
If that is something they self select, that is one thing.
On the other hand, sometimes, harms are caused by those same players, or approaches.
And it is horrifying to force religious crap or pseudo-science crap on people that donât want it.
And it is ethically questionable to suggest religious approaches or pseudo-science approaches to vulnerable people.
One has to approach deciding to do such things with an abundance of caution.
Thanks, makes more sense to me now.
Courts⌠place quite a bit of hope? confidence? in counseling/therapy and even medication.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnât.
What else are they going to do?
Rather than admit, that is beyond their ability of things they really control or can provide good solutions to vexing problems.
Courts and governments, and people, crave a sense of control, or authority that often exceeds their grasp, no matter how fine the robes and costumes, and rituals they cover themselves are.
Itâs all very cultish, and silly, and wishful thinking.
success rates would suggest you are not completely wrong.
Drug CourtsâŚ
AA
NA
Gotta try to help people?
And itâs a living, too.
Also, see state legislaturesâŚ
Yes, a contender for one of the oldest professions.
Maybe second oldest?
Maybe third?
Hard to say.