PhD/PsyD Just a thread to post the weirdest/whackiest/dumbest mental health-related stuff you come across in the (social) media...

[chicandtoughness]

Honestly, I suspect it’s because they don’t understand that psychodynamic and psychoanalytic therapy can be just as regimented as the CBT branch. The progressive are all about “I don’t want to follow the manual and just want my feels to lead the session.” Except, because psychoanalytic/dynamic theory is not taught well at all (esp at masters level), it turns into “they must not have a lot of rules because I’ve never been taught the rules.”

I’m surprised at the idea of psychoanalysis as a counterculture lol. What happened to good old “Rogerian” therapy with these folks?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Drugs are bad, but some are good, but only if good ppl do them, not the bad ppl.

DEA Chief: Winners Occasionally Use Drugs

WASHINGTON, DC—In a surprise announcement with wide-ranging implications for U.S. narcotics policy, Drug Enforcement Administration director Thomas Constantine acknowledged Monday that some winners "may occasionally" use drugs.

theonion.com

 

[clausewitz2]

Sure, but much of what they're advocating for is exceptionally old, psychoanalytic-derived stuff. Which I think is odd for so-called progressives to support given they claim CBT is "Western, White-centric, and patriarchal..." like, bruh, psychoanalysis is as Western, White-centric, and patriarchal as literally any mainstream psychotherapy modality has ever been.

I can see a doctrinaire Marxist arguing that psychoanalysis is almost pre-capitalist in its outlook and I think this is a line of argumentation you could develop asserting that it is in fact more properly understood as feudal than anything else. Must remember that money =! capitalist. I am not much interested in developing this line of argumentation myself not being a doctrinaire Marxist but I can see it.

 

[cara susanna]

Honestly, I've noticed that many of the people online who praise psychoanalysis (especially Lacan) and hate on CBT are men.

 

[chicandtoughness]

Ah, Lacan. That explains things.

 

[R. Matey]

Ah, Lacan. That explains things.

The mirror in my childhood bedroom had a spaceship on it. I'm pretty sure its why I tend towards idealism.

 

[cara susanna]

I literally never heard of Lacan until social media. Never came up in all of my years of schooling, including my doctorate.

 

[chicandtoughness]

I literally never heard of Lacan until social media. Never came up in all of my years of schooling, including my doctorate.

Same. Half of his writings sound like word salad. I'm genuinely interested in why folks enjoy/prefer his flavor of analysis.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

Same. Half of his writings sound like word salad. I'm genuinely interested in why folks enjoy/prefer his flavor of analysis.

I personally think all psychoanalysis (more or less) is pseudoscience, but Lacan is particularly opaque.

 

[WisNeuro]

So, I had left my state association due to several reasons, but their movement away from science being one of them. Just received an ad from them today about one of their upcoming CEs, it's a training for parental and caregiver support within polyvagal theory. Just sliding farther and farther into the pseudoscience rabbit hole. I held it back somewhat when I was in leadership, but looks like there are no longer any science oriented folks leading the way there at all.

 

[RxPsych]

So, I had left my state association due to several reasons, but their movement away from science being one of them. Just received an ad from them today about one of their upcoming CEs, it's a training for parental and caregiver support within polyvagal theory. Just sliding farther and farther into the pseudoscience rabbit hole. I held it back somewhat when I was in leadership, but looks like there are no longer any science oriented folks leading the way there at all.

The proliferation of all this nonsense is concerning. I'd imagine other professions have similar things happening within their fields and associations, how have they gone about quelling it? Or do they ignore it? Do true empirically supported treatments and approaches always win out in the end or is it possible we could see them being phased out?

 

[WisNeuro]

The proliferation of all this nonsense is concerning. I'd imagine other professions have similar things happening within their fields and associations, how have they gone about quelling it? Or do they ignore it? Do true empirically supported treatments and approaches always win out in the end or is it possible we could see them being phased out?

Anti-science and anti-intellectualism tends to run in trends. We're approaching a peak of that (hopefully it can't get much worse).

 

[oliversacks4thewin]

I recently saw a commercial related to neuroscience watching the NBA playoffs and could not help but feel like the EEG I saw in the commercial was the qEEG in neurofeedback that has very few leads and the nonsensical "brain mapping" program that makes practically limited sense to anyone who works in the neurology world, or has a basic understanding of what an EEG actually measures. Can anyone confirm if this commercial study is just pop-neuroscience, or is it legit research science? If it is junk, crazy to think it has made it to the mainstream like this...

Can Cleaning Feel as Good as Petting Puppies? New Neuroscience Research from Clorox Says It Can

Today, Clorox announced a new brand platform, Clean Feels Good, that reimagines what brings small moments of satisfaction into people's daily lives. The platform includes innovative research comparing the emotional responses during common feel-good activities to a Clorox clean. Clorox knows the...

investors.thecloroxcompany.com

 

[smalltownpsych]

I recently saw a commercial related to neuroscience watching the NBA playoffs and could not help but feel like the EEG I saw in the commercial was the qEEG in neurofeedback that has very few leads and the nonsensical "brain mapping" program that makes practically limited sense to anyone who works in the neurology world, or has a basic understanding of what an EEG actually measures. Can anyone confirm if this commercial study is just pop-neuroscience, or is it legit research science? If it is junk, crazy to think it has made it to the mainstream like this...

Can Cleaning Feel as Good as Petting Puppies? New Neuroscience Research from Clorox Says It Can

Today, Clorox announced a new brand platform, Clean Feels Good, that reimagines what brings small moments of satisfaction into people's daily lives. The platform includes innovative research comparing the emotional responses during common feel-good activities to a Clorox clean. Clorox knows the...

investors.thecloroxcompany.com

Crazy to think that people are using junk data to sell stuff? I would be willing to bet that it is crap without even looking further. 😏

 

[chicandtoughness]

The proliferation of all this nonsense is concerning. I'd imagine other professions have similar things happening within their fields and associations, how have they gone about quelling it? Or do they ignore it? Do true empirically supported treatments and approaches always win out in the end or is it possible we could see them being phased out?

Medicine has had its fair share of naturopaths and quacks for ages. The good thing is that *most* (not all) folks who make it through the 8+ years of indentured servitude- I mean, intensive training- probably aren’t the ones that are super into pseudoscience. The duration of the training and the guide bars help keep the profession in check. Anyone who gets pseudosciency tends to be called out or has already chosen an alternate path like naturopathy or chiropractic.

Thus, I wager that the length and required delayed gratification of training does decrease the pseudoscience somewhat. Subjectively speaking, my doctoral trained psychologist colleagues were much better than the 2-year masters clinicians. Anyone can breeze through a 2-year program (I had a 4.0 while working two full time jobs, it was a joke and my program was considered one of the best in the state), and then go out and do whatever they want. They’re not taught how to evaluate whether something is scientific. Heck, they’re barely taught statistics and research design.

The other part is just licensing and professional standards. A physician caught injecting chicken blood into their patient will probably have their license revoked. A therapist recommending sound baths and sage probably gets praised for innovative practice.

More rigorous education and licensing standards would help pull a profession out of pseudoscience, but alas…

 

[cara susanna]

I keep seeing people saying (in non therapy or mh related subs) that OCD is caused by trauma. Aghhh

 

[chicandtoughness]

Everything is trauma, didn’t we establish this already? 🤣

Your posting here about it is giving me little t trauma 😥

 

[futureapppsy2]

Everything is trauma, didn’t we establish this already? 🤣

Your posting here about it is giving me little t trauma 😥

You need EMDR!

 

[WisNeuro]

You need EMDR!

This is clearly a job for parts work. Maybe some brainspotting.

 

[chicandtoughness]

Heck, why not all of the above! There’s nothing saying you can’t pick and choose and throw it in a blender! 😍😍😍

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

I got downvoted today on Reddit for saying (on a non-therapy sub) that IQ--when properly assessed and interpreted--is an accurate and meaningful metric. Folks told me I must not understand how biased these tests are and how they only measure a narrow definition of intelligence and neglect "super important" things like social/emotional intelligence and other forms of multiple intelligences. The petty part of me wants to challenge the other commenter(s) into providing me an accurate, intelligible, non-AI-generated description of the difference between classical psychometric theory and item response theory, then I'll entertain their perspective on psychometrics.

 

[WisNeuro]

I got downvoted today on Reddit for saying (on a non-therapy sub) that IQ--when properly assessed and interpreted--is an accurate and meaningful metric. Folks told me I must not understand how biased these tests are and how they only measure a narrow definition of intelligence and neglect "super important" things like social/emotional intelligence and other forms of multiple intelligences. The petty part of me wants to challenge the other commenter(s) into providing me an accurate, intelligible, non-AI-generated description of the difference between classical psychometric theory and item response theory, then I'll entertain their perspective on psychometrics.

These people are not interested in the data. Feelz over realz.

 

[DoubtfulDoc]

I got downvoted today on Reddit for saying (on a non-therapy sub) that IQ--when properly assessed and interpreted--is an accurate and meaningful metric. Folks told me I must not understand how biased these tests are and how they only measure a narrow definition of intelligence and neglect "super important" things like social/emotional intelligence and other forms of multiple intelligences. The petty part of me wants to challenge the other commenter(s) into providing me an accurate, intelligible, non-AI-generated description of the difference between classical psychometric theory and item response theory, then I'll entertain their perspective on psychometrics.

It’s not worth it to explain it to those folks. Measuring IQ, academic performance, achievement, etc. these are psychology’s greatest triumphs in measurement and prediction.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I got downvoted today on Reddit for saying (on a non-therapy sub) that IQ--when properly assessed and interpreted--is an accurate and meaningful metric. Folks told me I must not understand how biased these tests are and how they only measure a narrow definition of intelligence and neglect "super important" things like social/emotional intelligence and other forms of multiple intelligences. The petty part of me wants to challenge the other commenter(s) into providing me an accurate, intelligible, non-AI-generated description of the difference between classical psychometric theory and item response theory, then I'll entertain their perspective on psychometrics.

paraphrasing somebody (Mark Twain?): 'Never argue with an idiot...they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

working at VA and having to swim [tread water] daily in an ocean of ignorance/bias/emotion surrounding such topics as mTBI/'postconcussion syndrome,' PTSD, service dogs and full-time paid caregivers for PTSD, etc., etc....it's an exercise in discipline.

 

[cara susanna]

Honestly, there are some VERY intelligent people I follow on social media who also bash IQ testing. It's so widely misunderstood, it's sad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Honestly, there are some VERY intelligent people I follow on social media who also bash IQ testing. It's so widely misunderstood, it's sad.

Some people tend to look at some of the issues with testing, and conclude that the entire enterprise is invalid for some reason. Though, for some reason, they do not apply that same reasoning to their own beliefs in the field.

 

[R. Matey]

Some people tend to look at some of the issues with testing, and conclude that the entire enterprise is invalid for some reason. Though, for some reason, they do not apply that same reasoning to their own beliefs in the field.

That would require self-reflection, which feels a whole lot less satisfying than smug outrage.

 

[WisNeuro]

That would require self-reflection, which feels a whole lot less satisfying than smug outrage.

Unfortunately it's where we're at across the political spectrum at this point, whether it's denouncing assessment or going on a crusade against certain vaccines because they aren't 100% effective and have an infinitesimal serious side effect rate, while at the same time talking hydroxycholorquine, despite it not working for what they are taking it for and it having pretty serious cardiac side effects in a non-negligible number of people.

 

[R. Matey]

Unfortunately it's where we're at across the political spectrum at this point, whether it's denouncing assessment or going on a crusade against certain vaccines because they aren't 100% effective and have an infinitesimal serious side effect rate, while at the same time talking hydroxycholorquine, despite it not working for what they are taking it for and it having pretty serious cardiac side effects in a non-negligible number of people.

Have to agree here. It's hard to put on a finger on exactly who or what is to blame, but it seems that the ability for thoughtful, meaningful discourse between two parties who disagree has all but vanished from American politics. It will likely stay that way as long as nuanced views are seen as weakness or infidelity.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I know what classic scholars who study fascism have said….attacking experts and destroying education are cornerstones of a fascist regime. Replace facts and expertise with indoctrination (of a particular brand) and reinforce the “strongman” approach to governing….“only *I* know how to lead the country”. The death of expertise was created to control the masses, not benefit them. They don’t want free thinkers, they only want the free labor.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

For clarity, I fully understand that there is strong historical precedent that would warrant caution over the idea of IQ testing--it is rooted, unambiguously in eugenics. And there are still cultural biases that play a role. I can therefore understand why folks of a more liberal persuasion (which I say genuinely, as self-identified progressive) would be prone to not want to believe in the notion that modern IQ testing. That said, the folks who are full on IQ denialists or who act smug in their "well IQ tests only measure how good you are at taking that IQ test, and don't actually measure intelligence" nonsense really grind my gears. Almost universally, they reference "multiple forms of intelligence," often mentioning subtypes of general intelligence that we already include on IQ tests (e.g., someone yesterday was complaining that IQ tests don't measure visuospatial intelligence) or models that are just outright bunk (e.g., another person cited Gardner's multiple intelligences).