New Thread: Psychoanalysis. Psychodynamics, EBT, and the Science of Psychology

[Ollie123]

This thread helps me understand why the SSCP listserv is often abuzz with requests for referrals...pretty scary stuff going on out there.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Eivuwan]

At the end of the day, your evidence based treatments are no more or less effective in treating people with complex psychological issues than my psychodynamic approach that is evolving from a multidisciplinary framework. Your approach lends itself better to the culture we live and practice in (the same culture that has been so misguided on so many fronts, driven by institutions that invest much in research and statistical methods), while mine does not. But the culture at large within which we study and practice is the same that declares high fructose corn syrup to be benign, only then learning that it is at the foundation for a health epidemic so vast in proportion that it will take generations to correct, and the poor suffer most, as usual. And it's the same culture that conjures up justification for stupid wars, but leaves injured, traumatized veterans stranded, and even homeless. It all fits together.

And, at the end of the day, you and I will have the same license and privilege to practice psychology in the way that we believe is most effective and worthwhile.

Now how do you know that your psychodynamic approach is no more or less effective than EBTs. What is the basis of this assertion? You are also making assertions about how EBTs are more suitable for our apparently problematic culture with no evidence or reasoning.

Can you see why we don't find your arguments to be persuasive?

 

[Eivuwan]

I don't wish my way of working with people to be tied to any particular institutions' interpretation of how the human mind works, or doesn't, and how to go about helping people.

Ok, and how do you propose that we go about protecting patients from unethical therapists or treatments that are simply a waste of time and money?

 

[PsychAndMusic]

And, at the end of the day, you and I will have the same license and privilege to practice psychology in the way that we believe is most effective and worthwhile.

I just couldn't keep my mouth shut anymore. Soooo if there are two medical doctors (at the end of the day with the same license) they have the priviledge to practice medicine in anyway they believe to be most effective and worthwhile? Sure but do they? No. A doctor won't give you a treatment for a medical condition based on what they think MIGHT work. It should certainly be the same for psychology.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Buzz, you are taking that "People Against the Unethical Treatment of Students in Psychology" thing way too seriously. Many of the people posting in here haven't contributed to the petition, or criticized it.

Perhaps, CS, perhaps. I do think the heavier hitters here were/are active there. In any case the themes have tended to overlap at points -- heck this thread IS the continuation of the addressing anti-psyd sentiments thread.

 

[erg923]

This thread helps me understand why the SSCP listserv is often abuzz with requests for referrals...pretty scary stuff going on out there.

Indeed, Ollie

Dream, you've managed to talk yourself into a nonsensical hole that you probably wont gonna be able to recover from in this thread (catholicism, priest sex abuse, high fructose corn syrup?....wtf?!).

If anything demonstrates arrogance and closed mindedness, it's this "I know better than everyone else" (including objective data) though my clinical "intuition."-your so-called data is beneath me, attitude. Please note that only a one or two people here have really taken issue with the dynamic approach in and of itself. It's your strange (although not too uncommon among hardcore analytic practitioners) aversion to the foundation on which clinical and experimental psychology is built upon-Science. It should be quite obvious that all of us are passionate about the field and hate to see it thrust back to a state of being openly resistant to empirical examination. You admit that you think its largely a waste of time and that you don't believe the results anyhow.

In your very first post on this board you made mention on how frustrated you are with a system that doesn't utilize or value our services like they should. Did it ever occur to you that your philosophy of practice reinforces the stereotype that psychology has so desperately tried to get away from? If there's anything that the medical community and insurance companies hate, its practitioners who blow-off the need to practice evidenced based medicine (this includes mental health services) or examine the effectiveness of the interventions they employ. Well no wonder they don't respect us if they see that kind of stuff, right? You're complaining, but you're attitude and your practice philosophy certainly aren't helping matters.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

"People Against the Unethical Treatment of Students in Psychology"

I meant that signature as a riff on PETA, it was supposed to be funny.

The signature IS funny -- and danged ironic. That's why I'm having fun with it! Can you blame me? I mean, it's not every day a group you take issue with labels themselves a bunch of PATUTS. Now the petition itself, that's a different and far less amusing matter, on that we can agree.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I just couldn't keep my mouth shut anymore. Soooo if there are two medical doctors (at the end of the day with the same license) they have the priviledge to practice medicine in anyway they believe to be most effective and worthwhile? Sure but do they? No. A doctor won't give you a treatment for a medical condition based on what they think MIGHT work. It should certainly be the same for psychology.

Didn't you get the memo?

We only need doctorates so we can be free of answering to others for what we do. I mean we need to make our patients believe in us so we can get paid, but other than that we only need our degree so we can be free to do whatever the heck we want

 

[DreamInterpret]

Why don't you all go ahead and continue being the choir of castrati sopranos you are.

 

[roubs]

Why don't you all go ahead and continue being the choir of castrati sopranos you are.

At this point you are moving into internet troll territory so I'm going to respond accordingly. cya thread!

 

[aequitasveritas]

Shall we psychoanalyze her?

We have material, castrati, chauvinism (in a field that's like 80% women, no less), a conflation of masculine traits and science, a desire to remove science from the field, a desire to remove masculinity from those in the forum that disagree with her, masculinity = power . . .hmm.

...haha. We could go on and on with the rich narratives on this thread. Yet I think we would only be drawn into the projective identification if we did.
... So I will take this opportunity to wish Joan of Arc well, that her patients get a job transfer and have to move locations, that she is not licensed in the new location and hence cannot do skype therapy, that "integrative" all encompassing-totally awesome DreamInterpret-based therapy wastes alot of money at worst...oh dam...see how hard it is not to get sucked in?

...By the way Dream...I'm heavily Psychoanalytic, which, is becoming "evidence" based with the more metas and effectiveness studies. THATS A GOOD THING

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What started off as a slow trainwreck of a thread has now picked up speed and is a full-fledged trainwreck. Let this be evidence of why there is a greater focus on EBT treatments, and a shift away from, "but it works for my patients" treatment. Practicing without a proven/supported framework is like doing a highwire act without a net, you may be able to get by for awhile, but eventually you'll need the net to protect against a misstep.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Too bad. Eastern approaches, like mindfulness, have quite a bit of evidence supporting their effectiveness. Science does not promote a specific cultural agenda like you suggest. It is open to looking at a variety of approaches; it's just that not all of them cut the mustard, like mindfulness does.

Anyway, there are other things going on in the world tonight that I am now going to turn my attention to.

Science is hardly as "open" as you suggest. Thomas Kuhn would disagree with the idea that science is culture neutral. Science itself is a culture-bound process, created by western civilization and frequently used as a force for oppression and exploitation. Furthermore it itself has schemas and perceptual lenses through which it works. Science is never unbiased and objective. I am astonished that a psychology grad student could write such as sentence given our field's history of reifying existing cultural biases.

That being said, yes the Pakistani government has a lot of explaining to do!

 

[Neuropsych2be]

I don't know why you keep holding psychodynamic approaches as separate from science.



Notice, I have not endorsed or rejected any particular theoretical framework. I have only stated that we must operate within the purview of science.

Check out the neuropsychology of sigmund freud, an article written by Karl Pribram some time ago. Interesting stuff.

EBT's are interesting and useful because they have answered the question of psychotherapy effectiveness. But ultimately fall short at least on a theoretical basis. The human brain is the most complex object in existence but you would never know it from an analysis of much of the CBT and EBT literature. An older article by Drew Westen which encapsulates the scientific foundations of psychodynamic psychology is a useful overview.

Westen, D. (1998) The scientific legacy of sigmund freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin. 124. 333-371.

The problem I see with EBT's is that they explicitly model themselves on medical treatment. A client presents with a complex affective state or states which is causing them or society distress and discomfort. We "diagnose" that person using a diagnostic system created by another profession that lacks reliability much less validity. We then apply distinct "treatments" to each of these unreliable and invalid diagnostic categories, see a statistically significant change as based on a measure and declare victory.

The approach seen in the whole EBT movement takes a overly Kraeplinian approach to defining various disorders and defining specific treatments for each of these disorders. I have been in this field long enough to see the progression from DSM-II through the latest DSM and it is a sad and pathetic tale. This is a deeply dehumanizing, mechanistic approach to the human suffering as well a being bad science and bad practice. If psychologists wish to engage in treatment outcome research, then the first order of business is the creation of a diagnostic system with reasonable reliability and validity. If the entire corpus of outcome research is based on a diagnostic system that is not worth the paper it is printed on, then what are we left with??

Consequently I am skeptical of the entire EBT endeavor. God only knows what will happen when the train wreck known as the DSM-V emerges from the colon of organized psychiatry.

 

[nitemagi]

I just couldn't keep my mouth shut anymore. Soooo if there are two medical doctors (at the end of the day with the same license) they have the priviledge to practice medicine in anyway they believe to be most effective and worthwhile? Sure but do they? No. A doctor won't give you a treatment for a medical condition based on what they think MIGHT work. It should certainly be the same for psychology.

Within the medical world, one is only required to practice within the Standard of Care, which varies by region and individual and believe it or not isn't necessarily the most evidence based. It just meets the standard of what others in the community are doing. Getting paid for it is a different matter.

Within psychotherapy according to some of the process related research (community studies of actual in the office videotaped practice), few people follow standards, and essentially "eclectic" is the standard. For better or worse.

 

[aequitasveritas]

EBT's are interesting and useful because they have answered the question of psychotherapy effectiveness. But ultimately fall short at least on a theoretical basis. The human brain is the most complex object in existence but you would never know it from an analysis of much of the CBT and EBT literature. An older article by Drew Westen which encapsulates the scientific foundations of psychodynamic psychology is a useful overview.

Westen, D. (1998) The scientific legacy of sigmund freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin. 124. 333-371.

The problem I see with EBT's is that they explicitly model themselves on medical treatment. A client presents with a complex affective state or states which is causing them or society distress and discomfort. We "diagnose" that person using a diagnostic system created by another profession that lacks reliability much less validity. We then apply distinct "treatments" to each of these unreliable and invalid diagnostic categories, see a statistically significant change as based on a measure and declare victory.

The approach seen in the whole EBT movement takes a overly Kraeplinian approach to defining various disorders and defining specific treatments for each of these disorders. I have been in this field long enough to see the progression from DSM-II through the latest DSM and it is a sad and pathetic tale. This is a deeply dehumanizing, mechanistic approach to the human suffering as well a being bad science and bad practice. If psychologists wish to engage in treatment outcome research, then the first order of business is the creation of a diagnostic system with reasonable reliability and validity. If the entire corpus of outcome research is based on a diagnostic system that is not worth the paper it is printed on, then what are we left with??

Consequently I am skeptical of the entire EBT endeavor. God only knows what will happen when the train wreck known as the DSM-V emerges from the colon of organized psychiatry.

Well stated. Many, many problems with "E"BTs. One of the points of the thread is that posts like yours are what is needed, rather than the crap Dream has been putting up.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The approach seen in the whole EBT movement takes a overly Kraeplinian approach to defining various disorders and defining specific treatments for each of these disorders. I have been in this field long enough to see the progression from DSM-II through the latest DSM and it is a sad and pathetic tale. This is a deeply dehumanizing, mechanistic approach to the human suffering as well a being bad science and bad practice. If psychologists wish to engage in treatment outcome research, then the first order of business is the creation of a diagnostic system with reasonable reliability and validity. If the entire corpus of outcome research is based on a diagnostic system that is not worth the paper it is printed on, then what are we left with??

Great in theory, but tough in practice. I think the DSM folks could learn something from the PDM (Psychodynamic Diagnositic Manual). Neither is a panacea, but the PDM attempts to look more at the person and does not evaluate the person as merely the sum of their symptoms. Reliability and validity are still two areas that the PDM needs to prove, but at least they are taking a stab at an alternative approach to catpture what is needed.

Here is a decent review by the New York Times of the PDM.

It is worth noting that achieving a diagnosis through the PDM is not going to automatically dictate the course of treatment, but instead it offers a way to conceptualize the patient before choosing an intervention.

 

[KillerDiller]

Science is hardly as "open" as you suggest. Thomas Kuhn would disagree with the idea that science is culture neutral. Science itself is a culture-bound process, created by western civilization and frequently used as a force for oppression and exploitation. Furthermore it itself has schemas and perceptual lenses through which it works. Science is never unbiased and objective. I am astonished that a psychology grad student could write such as sentence given our field's history of reifying existing cultural biases.

That being said, yes the Pakistani government has a lot of explaining to do!

I'm not a huge fan of Kuhn's, though I do think he made some interesting points. To clarify, it is true that science is not completely objective. Scientists are as subject as anyone else to their own human biases and we see that this can and does show up in the work. However, the process of empiricism is the most objective lens we have to examine the issues we deal with as psychologists. I'm ok with pointing out it's flaws from the inside as a way to refine the discipline, but I'm not ok with throwing one's hands up and saying that we can't trust anything science says because it is completely biased and thus equal to any other way of knowing. Science has a culture, and yet it is culture neutral in the sense that, with care, empirical processes can and are being used to examine practices cross culturally and within cultures outside of the western world. My response was to the notion that science automatically invalidates things outside the west, which is simply untrue, as eastern ideas are coming out quite well.

Also, science, unlike other means of knowing, is self-correcting. Thus, while it may reify a cultural bias at one point in time, more science can, in theory, be used to correct that bias.

 

[Eivuwan]

Jon Snow, I take back what I said about you going too far. I thought Dreaminterpret might be a competent psychodynamic therapist even if she does not pay attention to research. However, now that she is throwing out terms like "negative transference" and implying that we have castration anxiety without seeming to understand what those terms mean, I suspect that she does not understand what she is practicing.

Shall we psychoanalyze her?

We have material, castrati, chauvinism (in a field that's like 80% women, no less), a conflation of masculine traits and science, a desire to remove science from the field, a desire to remove masculinity from those in the forum that disagree with her, masculinity = power . . .hmm.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Great in theory, but tough in practice. I think the DSM folks could learn something from the PDM (Psychodynamic Diagnositic Manual). Neither is a panacea, but the PDM attempts to look more at the person and does not evaluate the person as merely the sum of their symptoms. Reliability and validity are still two areas that the PDM needs to prove, but at least they are taking a stab at an alternative approach to catpture what is needed.

Here is a decent review by the New York Times of the PDM.

It is worth noting that achieving a diagnosis through the PDM is not going to automatically dictate the course of treatment, but instead it offers a way to conceptualize the patient before choosing an intervention.

The latest issue of the Journal of Personality Assessment was devoted to the PDM. I highly recommend the issue. nancy McWilliams ahs a review and makes the point that it has the potential to help clinicians recapture the "personhood" of the patient.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm a female lyric coloratura soprano, not a castrati soprano! I resent that implication because boy sopranos terrify me. D:

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The latest issue of the Journal of Personality Assessment was devoted to the PDM. I highly recommend the issue. nancy McWilliams ahs a review and makes the point that it has the potential to help clinicians recapture the "personhood" of the patient.

Thank you for the recommendation. I do agree with your "personhood" comment. As an aside, this has been an interesting detour to the discussion, as it has offered me the opportunity to think more about my approach to conceptualization. I still identify with an object-relational approach to conceptualization, though it's been a challenge to use that in daily practice because of time/need. So much of the work I do now is triage (supportive therapy with assessment mixed in to get some baseline data, then referrals out).

 

[DreamInterpret]

I'm a female lyric coloratura soprano, not a castrati soprano! I resent that implication because boy sopranos terrify me. D:

They terrify me too. Nuf said.

The "inner circle" mentality on this forum is, frankly, really scary. And it's the same mentality I've experienced in the many institutions that you all will eventually be working in, be they clinical or research or teaching.

You need not have a penis to be a chauvinist. Very often, it's the women of a particular culture that initiate other women into the system of rules. For example, women in Islamist societies socialize other women into practices like veiling, just as it is women in America who socialize other women into eating disorders.

 

[DreamInterpret]

Jon Snow, I take back what I said about you going too far. I thought Dreaminterpret might be a competent psychodynamic therapist even if she does not pay attention to research. However, now that she is throwing out terms like "negative transference" and implying that we have castration anxiety without seeming to understand what those terms mean, I suspect that she does not understand what she is practicing.

Who said anything about castration anxiety? What I meant to say is that there is a shrillness to the way you all seem to chime in together. Then again, I'm not surprised because thinking in metaphor is probably not any of your strong suits...

 

[DreamInterpret]

Well stated. Many, many problems with "E"BTs. One of the points of the thread is that posts like yours are what is needed, rather than the crap Dream has been putting up.

Wait! But I did say all of those things! But clearly there's something about the way I expressed it that was not reverent enough toward the current state of the field. Maybe it bothers you that I am not particularly worried about using a style of discourse that you are comfortable with.

I feel like if I'd been the one to put "train wreck" and "DSM-V" in the same sentence, I might have been burnt to a crisp, in keeping with the witch hunt metaphor that someone else mentioned earlier.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Who said anything about castration anxiety? What I meant to say is that there is a shrillness to the way you all seem to chime in together. Then again, I'm not surprised because thinking in metaphor is probably not any of your strong suits...

The fact is that there is a way you could have stated your points in a clear and matter of fact manner, which may have been effective. In fact, I did it a few pages ago by invoking some Westen articles and questioning the assumptions underlying EBT, RCT, and experimental designs in general. It was actually quite effective. If you look, Ollie agreed with me and gave some kudos and some others had some ideas as well. That's how it works..we can discuss things in a spirited yet intellectual way.
The reason you're experiencing push-back is because you came in with such fire and brimstone with so much more than just clearly stated and cogent arguments. Moreover, you do rediculous things like assume that others on an anonymous forum don't engage in their own therapy or ONLY use EBTs etc. Of course there will be caustic reactions to such idiocy.

 

[FadedC]

The "inner circle" mentality on this forum is, frankly, really scary. And it's the same mentality I've experienced in the many institutions that you all will eventually be working in, be they clinical or research or teaching.

I've been on these forums for awhile and there is a pretty diverse range of opinions here. There are many people who would be far more open and supportive fo what your ideas are if you managed to present them in a less insulting and condescending manner.

Also a lot of people on these forums (though not me) are done with school and have already worked at all those places you are talking about.

 

[erg923]

I think she doesn't addresses the points about practicing within the purview of science because she has a very different view of this discipline than anyone I have ever met. Sorry, I guess we are just not exposed to these types in my region.

That said, even the most hardcore analyst types I have met don't harken back to the good ole days when we didn't have to answer to science about the nature and effectiveness of our interventions. As I stressed before, it is this stereotyped view of psychology as "psychobabble" and resistant to examining ourselves empirically that has largely put us in the position we are in within the healthcare system. A position Dreaminterpret bitches and moans about. I know she has read these comments, but she has chosen not to respond and to pretend that her practice style in no way contributed to the situation she so despises. In her thought process, I guess it was just "the mans" fault or something, who knows?

 

[erg923]

I've been on these forums for awhile and there is a pretty diverse range of opinions here. There are many people who would be far more open and supportive fo what your ideas are if you managed to present them in a less insulting and condescending manner.

Can I add to that "in a more relevant and coherent manner?"

I get a strange vibe of feminism combined with a progressive, leftist agenda here. This only confuses the matter for me and leads me to believe that she is letting these biases and viewpoints contaminate her view of the science of psychology. In other words the nutritional value of high fructose corn syrup is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Can I add to that "in a more relevant and coherent manner?"

I get a strange vibe of feminism combined with a progressive, leftist agenda here. This only confuses the matter for me and leads me to believe that she is letting these biases and viewpoints contaminate her view of the science of psychology. In other words the nutritional value of high fructose corn syrup is not relevant to this discussion.

...You're just too hopped up on corn syrup to think straight

 

[PsychAndMusic]

...You're just too hopped up on corn syrup to think straight

hahaha

 

[DreamInterpret]

. . . and thinking doesn't seem to be yours. Zing!


Seriously though, you've managed to argue virtually no points coherently and attempted to insult everyone on the forum while simultaneoulsy narrowly defining science and, by extension, clinical psychology. Also, you've managed to ignore that several people on here have expressed some degree of support for psychodynamic theory, while sticking to your guns that EBT/EST = CBT and that CBT is reductionistic and severely limited, ignoring many similarities in theoretical framework to psychodynamic constructs. Good show. What you seem to be missing is that people here are objecting to your expressed viewpoints BECAUSE they are unscientific; people have elaborated why, and asked you to clarify points, and you have dodged/ignored these requests. Yet, you choose to suggest that those of us who think psychology is a science are concrete (unable to use metaphor), do not understand your perspective, and are engaging in insular groupthink. I am not impressed.

I don't feel I've dodged anything. I've just refused to allow your discourse dominate me, and that pisses you off. I admit, I can be a little oppositional, but that puts me in a position to be empathic towards people who are on the receiving end of psychological services that are inadequate, and ultimately ineffective, and who aren't in a position to question the authority of those delivering the treatment, or see the inadequacy in the system. Rather, if people relapse, it's very easy for them to see it as a personal failure as opposed to a failure of the system to understand or address the full scope of what they are struggling with, let alone a failure that is a complex co-creation. There is a big dissociative gap between the therapies that we learn to use (psychodynamic included, if you wish) and the benefits that people receive from them. And it simply is true that grant-giving organizations and third party agencies prefer treatments that fit a medical model, and that leaves less for others that may offer better results.

So, if I don't regurgitate that there are similar constructs, it means I don't think they're there? If I don't reference Weston as 4 other people already did, I don't have a valid argument? If I don't cite Paul Meehl or Philip Cushman, or Sass, or Linehan, or the researcher du jour, it means that my education has been inadequate?

You all have managed to gloss over some of my criticisms as well. For example:

"Oh, well, yeah... um, you kinda, sorta have a point that it would be good if all clinicians had the experience of being in the patient's chair, but... um... well, we have science, you see, and that makes that experiential piece less relevant. Why don't you cite a study that operationalizes whatever it is that happens in that experience, and then maybe, if we feel "empathic growth" has been adequately measured and shown to be statistically valid (because of a nice neat questionnaire we've devised and given in identical conditions on both ends of the study), and if the study can be replicated, we'll consider not looking down at our noses at you. Now go along and do your angel therapy."

You are all so very condescending. I really hope that, before you start practicing without supervision, you get that worked out.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

I think she doesn't address the points about practicing responsibly and within the purview of science because she has a very different view of this discipline than anyone I have ever met. Sorry, I guess we are just not exposed to these types in my region.

That said, even the most hardcore analyst types I have met don't harken back to the good ole days when we didn't have to answer to science about the nature and effectiveness of our interventions. As I stressed before, it is this stereotyped view of psychology as "psychobabble" and resistant to examining ourselves empirically that has largely put us in the position we are in within the healthcare system. A position Dreaminterpret bitches and moans about. I know she has read these comments, but she has chosen not to respond and to pretend that her practice style in no way contributed to the situation she so despises. In her thought process, I guess it was just "the mans" fault or something, who knows?

As a psychodynamically oriented person, I can say that in large measure, the unwillingness to examine outcomes was a function of analytic hubris and arrogance. Remember for decades psychoanalysis was the only game in town AND it was restricted to physicians. For decades psychologists and clinical social workers were excluded from formal psychoanalytic training institutes despite there being no rational justification for this. If you are in a position of power with a monopoly, why bother to examine effectiveness? Psychoanalysts of the "old school" epitomized utter disdain and were deeply offended by anyone who broke with orthodoxy (like Karen Horney).

It is no accident that psychodynamic therapy is now being subjected to outcome studies and something of a renaissance has emerged now that psychoanalytic training is open to psychologists. I personally detest therapy wars where one theoretical orientation attacks another. The human brain and the mind which operates through it are the most complex things known to science. None of our theoretical models of therapy (theories of therapy are theories of human nature) do the brain and mind justice in any way whatsosever! The mystery of our person hood mocks our carefully constructed but wholly inadequate models.

 

[erg923]

You are all so very condescending. I really hope that, before you start practicing without supervision, you get that worked out.

Ah, that good ole "you guys are a bunch of meanies, how can you be all warm and cuddly with your patients" argument. You're not the first to argue such a flawed insinuation, believe me.

For goodness sake lady, why should scientific debate have to be be conducted like are therapy sessions? Moreover, how on earth is this a reflection of someones therapy skills? I can honestly say I have never seen a professional debate with colleague in the same manner they conduct psychotherapy with a patient. Have you?

PS: I think alot of us here have actually been through our own therapy at the encouragement, and sometimes requirement, of our programs. I didnt really see alot of people deny that or argue against it. I think what we were arguing against is some of the more extreme stuff you seemed so proud of. Taking an antipsychotic so the doc could know what the patient was feeling. Sorry, guess I'm not willing to ingest drugs for my patients...so shoot me, alright. The premise seems flawed as well. Do I need to do LSD so I can appreciate hallucinations and empathize better with schizophrenics? No. Do I need to abuse some substances in order to get my empathy to acceptable level to treat addicts. No. Show me some research on that if you think so though.

 

[DreamInterpret]

Can I add to that "in a more relevant and coherent manner?"

I get a strange vibe of feminism combined with a progressive, leftist agenda here. This only confuses the matter for me and leads me to believe that she is letting these biases and viewpoints contaminate her view of the science of psychology. In other words the nutritional value of high fructose corn syrup is not relevant to this discussion.

Ya know? I thought I was picking up on a sort of conservative, right-wing-ish flavor throughout these boards...

There are now actual studies that link high fructose corn syrup to the increase in mental illness in the US (I'm sure you can google it, so I won't cite any names or references here). But that's not a concern for the folks who think the corn industry, which is supported by the oil industry, which is a major political force, should continue to get government subsidies while Iraq veterans get piss poor treatment for their combat wounds, physical as well as psychological. What a disgrace.

 

[Jegg]

There are now actual studies that link high fructose corn syrup to the increase in mental illness in the US (I'm sure you can google it, so I won't cite any names or references here).

Did they use the scientific method in these studies?

 

[erg923]

Ya know? I thought I was picking up on a sort of conservative, right-wing-ish flavor throughout these boards...

There are now actual studies that link high fructose corn syrup to the increase in mental illness in the US (I'm sure you can google it, so I won't cite any names or references here). But that's not a concern for the folks who think the corn industry, which is supported by the oil industry, which is a major political force, should continue to get government subsidies while Iraq veterans get piss poor treatment for their combat wounds, physical as well as psychological. What a disgrace.

MMMKAY....How exactly did that irrelevant tangent add to the value of this discussion? If anything, it just proved my assumption that your letting other issues contaminate your thinking process about the science of psychology.

Full disclosure: my wife and I are Roman Catholics, and I drink alot of soda....

 

[aequitasveritas]

Did they use the scientific method in these studies?

LOLOLOL

 

[aequitasveritas]

I, for one, am so damm wired on corn syrup idk if i can keep it together! The only thing that can save me now is angel therapy!!! Stop hand...don't reach for that pepsi! Nuh...nuh...nooo...(chug chug chug).

 

[DreamInterpret]

Ah, that good ole "you guys are a bunch of meanies, how can you be all warm and cuddly with your patients" argument. You're not the first to argue such a flawed insinuation, believe me.

For goodness sake lady, why should scientific debate have to be be conducted like are therapy sessions? Moreover, how on earth is this a reflection of someones therapy skills? I can honestly say I have never seen a professional debate with colleague in the same manner they conduct psychotherapy with a patient. Have you?

PS: I think alot of us here have actually been through our own therapy at the encouragement, and sometimes requirement, of our programs. I didnt really see alot of people deny that or argue against it. I think what we were arguing against is some of the more extreme stuff you seemed so proud of. Taking an antipsychotic so the doc could know what the patient was feeling. Sorry, guess I'm not willing to ingest drugs for my patients...so shoot me, alright. The premise seems flawed as well. Do I need to do LSD so I can appreciate hallucination and empathize better with schizophrenics? No. Do I need to abuse some substances in order to get my empathy to acceptable level to treat addicts. No. Show me some research on that if you think so though.

Actually, MICA populations do respond better to therapists who are also recovered addicts. And war veterans do better in group therapies that are led or co-led by other war veterans. I also think that the idea of sitting in a patient's chair and being on the receiving end of therapy is a very different thing from ingesting LSD for the purpose of developing empathy for hallucinative states. Most psychiatrist who work with people with psychoses are profoundly frustrated at patients who cheek their meds, and are not shy about letting their frustration turn into judgment and devaluing, which does not result in patients being more willing to take their meds. They probably could use some therapy to work through how their frustration impacts their work. One psychiatrist I know actually took some haldol, and after that, was able to really talk to his patients about side effects and what they mean, and offer a different voice than those of other patients who knew what it was like to take haldol.

I don't think I was asking you to talk with me as if I were a patient. How presumptuous. But I can tell you, erg923, that many of your posts on this and other threads have a hostile, harsh tone to them, so it's not just me who receives your hostility. And I cannot imagine that some of this bile doesn't or won't seep into your clinical work. All I can think is that either you are really young and cocky, or feel you have a lot to prove. In either case, I'm certain I'm not the first person to tell you your mean streak is definitely palpable. I really hope you land a lucrative research job and leave the clinical work to folks who are a little less abrasive.

 

[DreamInterpret]

MMMKAY....How exactly did that irrelevant tangent add to the value of this discussion? If anything, it just proved my assumption that your letting other issues contaminate your thinking process about the science of psychology.

Full disclosure: my wife and I are Roman Catholics, and I drink alot of soda....

Are you a practicing Catholic?

Well, speaking of tangents, it was Einstein that said imagination is more important than knowledge. People who are creative tend not to resent tangents so much.

 

[erg923]

Actually, MICA populations do respond better to therapists who are also recovered addicts. And war veterans do better in group therapies that are led or co-led by other war veterans. I also think that the idea of sitting in a patient's chair and being on the receiving end of therapy is a very different thing from ingesting LSD for the purpose of developing empathy for hallucinative states. Most psychiatrist who work with people with psychoses are profoundly frustrated at patients who cheek their meds, and are not shy about letting their frustration turn into judgment and devaluing, which does not result in patients being more willing to take their meds. They probably could use some therapy to work through how their frustration impacts their work. One psychiatrist I know actually took some haldol, and after that, was able to really talk to his patients about side effects and what they mean, and offer a different voice than those of other patients who knew what it was like to take haldol.

I don't think I was asking you to talk with me as if I were a patient. How presumptuous. But I can tell you, erg923, that many of your posts on this and other threads have a hostile, harsh tone to them, so it's not just me who receives your hostility. And I cannot imagine that some of this bile doesn't or won't seep into your clinical work. All I can think is that either you are really young and cocky, or feel you have a lot to prove. In either case, I'm certain I'm not the first person to tell you your mean streak is definitely palpable. I really hope you land a lucrative research job and leave the clinical work to folks who are a little less abrasive.

I can tell you, Dreaminterpet, that I am a clinician, primarily. Hide your children lady...

Yes, we both attend mass every week and are active volunteers in our parish. Have no idea why that is relevant here, but whatever...

 

[DreamInterpret]

LOLOLOL

Wow. This is really starting to take on the smell of a locker room.

 

[FadedC]

Ah, that good ole "you guys are a bunch of meanies, how can you be all warm and cuddly with your patients" argument. You're not the first to argue such a flawed insinuation, believe me.

It's true, although she is the first person I've seen use that argument while being equally obnoxious and condescending herself. For someone who argues the need to work out our own issues in therapy (which I don't disagree with), and who accuses the entire board of not having done that, she seems to show a remarkable lack of insight into her own issues and how she comes accross.

 

[DreamInterpret]

I can tell you, Dreaminterpet, that I am a clinician, primarily. Hide your children lady...

I can only hope that you come to these boards to vent and work through your hostility, and that it doesn't end up impacting your work.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Wow. This is really starting to take on the smell of a locker room.

Once we exhaust avenues to meaningful discourse there isnt much more than a few good laughs at your expense. That's just the way it goes

 

[erg923]

I can only hope that you come to these boards to vent and work through your hostility, and that it doesn't end up impacting your work.

Yes, I'm sure you do...

I am certainly not cocky about my skills as a therapist though. However, I am confident about what psychology IS, and under what paradigm this profession should operate if we want penetration into the healthcare market. You are the one who seems supremely confident in your abilities, so much so that you don't need all us academics or our research telling you what is and what isn't. Is that about right?

 

[DreamInterpret]

It's true, although she is the first person I've seen use that argument while being equally obnoxious and condescending herself. For someone who argues the need to work out our own issues in therapy (which I don't disagree with), and who accuses the entire board of not having done that, she seems to show a remarkable lack of insight into her own issues and how she comes accross.

Projection.

 

[DreamInterpret]

Once we exhaust avenues to meaningful discourse there isnt much more than a few good laughs at your expense. That's just the way it goes

"Meaningful discourse"... Wowza!!!

You all truly are a bunch of *******s.

 

[KillerDiller]

I get a strange vibe of feminism combined with a progressive, leftist agenda here.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure; I use those same words to describe myself...well, except for the "agenda" part.