5 ms·

> jsprogrammer's remarks being downvoted into oblivion is not warranted. he's making loaded statements out of ignorance because he wont bother to google psycho

> jsprogrammer's remarks being downvoted into oblivion is not warranted. he's making loaded statements out of ignorance because he wont bother to google psychotherapy's definition. There is a therapeutic process to talking and learning to manage emotions and cope with defenses. Licensure is a key feature so you prohibit people from making fake therapeutic claims or quackery. Or to limit taking advantage of emotionally vulnerable people (it still happens, but licensure requires insurance). Same reason you or I can't call ourselves doctors and claim to cure physiological illness. Do you disagree with that "licensure" too ? Why can't you and I open up a back and spinal clinic ? We could probably make a lot of dough. I dont know why its acceptable to denigrate the field of psychology. Is the 'engineering way' the only way to solve problems ? Should they just "stop it" until they have humans figured out down to a schematic/circuit ? Then they can treat all the anxiety/depression from our overworked consumerist lifestyles and make us into the perfect capitalist cattle ? Is psychology bullshit because Apple doesn't yet sell iPsychometers with USB-C interfaces so we can patch our brains with the latest "update" and all be perfect? Humans aren't machines and healing or treatment for psychological pain and mental illness isn't done by running a script. It's done by interviewing patients, classifying symptoms, taking surveys, attempting (and often failing) treatments, doing double blind trials. Things that aren't deterministic, which is also the nature of reality. Why can't you face that ? edit: let me give you specific examples of why you need a license to practice: * patient comes in and says they were raped. and the alleged rapist is still doing it. unlicensed quack might be scared to report it to the police, might avoid helping the patient at all because it's "too difficult", or might try to exploit abuse victim for his own sexual pleasure. * elderly suicidal patient divulges financial info to therapist, who then tips off a dirty lawyer/estate planner into contacting the patient and stealing /exploiting him. * husband and wife go to therapy. Husband knows he's getting divorced but doesn't want to pay half. So he pays off the therapist to give biased testimony in court blaming the wife for false actions. * therapist was personally harmed by a particular person earlier in life. now they take joy in intentionally misleading/upsetting other patients who look/act like the one who hurt them. I hope this is enough to see why the field is regulated.

lisper 10y ago
> Why can't you face that ? What makes you think I can't? (And why are you getting so defensive?) > I dont know why its acceptable to denigrate the field of psychology. Don't confuse denigration with legitimate criticism. Jsprogrammer's comments may have been loaded and ignorant, but they were not wrong: lobotomization was in fact considered a legitimate therapy in the not-so-distant past. And Psychology has a very checkered history, e.g.: http://jeffreymasson.com/books/final-analysis.html http://jeffreymasson.com/books/final-analysis.html And a current replication crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology So some skepticism of the profession's claims is not entirely unwarranted. BTW, but for the defensive tone, I think your response was very good, and exactly the sort of thing that is needed in this discussion. I upvoted you again.
- digler999 10y ago
  I apologize, yes I was defensive. Probably because I need more practice having my ideas challenged. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I will work on it. (and thank you HN for somehow cultivating a community where we can have such a forum). Absolutely, I agree that the field is not perfect. Let me address the link you sent (I haven't read the book): Psychoanalysis (also called the psychodynamic method) is but one of several prominent forms of therapy. I've never undertaken it, as I cannot afford to go 3hrs/week for a year or more, so I cannot talk from experience. I have read quite a bit about it from textbooks and I see a lot of merit to at least the theory. Merit, I say, because it appeared to corroborate with anecdotal evidence from my own life. I have seen the pattern in people, over and over again, who re-enact the behaviors they learned during their youth. You particularly hear about it with domestic violence: girls that grow up seeing mommy getting beat up (somehow) (very often) seem to become attracted to violent men and repeat the cycle. Boys who grow up seeing daddy beat up mommy (tend to) become aggressive toward women when they are adults. So I don't personally think the entire field of psychoanalysis is bullshit. The books I've read said that a good psychoanalyst can shake the patient to their core. It sounds like they are trained to sniff out the patient's malignant / self-defeating behaviors and show them how they are reenacting them in the therapeutic relationship. From there, I don't know exactly how they motivate change, but once they break you down on such a primitive emotional level, once your defenses are removed and layed before you, it makes sense that you would be weakened enough to consider making a change. So that's my case for psychoanalysis. Now, of course someone could take advantage of that. Maybe a patient is simply bipolar and their problems have nothing to do with reenacting their mom's abuse cycle. An unethical therapist could take advantage of that and milk the patient for 3 years' therapy and then say "oh yeah actually you just need to be on meds". It's malpractice and I'm sure it goes on every day in the medical field. MD's milking medicare. experienced dr's running unnecessary tests "just to be sure" when they know exactly whats wrong. Doing an X-ray in the hospital instead of an outpatient clinic so they can charge 3X more. Malpractice will always be around both in medicine and psychology.

lisper 10y ago

> Why can't you face that ? What makes you think I can't? (And why are you getting so defensive?) > I dont know why its acceptable to denigrate the field of psychology. Don't confuse denigration with legitimate criticism. Jsprogrammer's comments may have been loaded and ignorant, but they were not wrong: lobotomization was in fact considered a legitimate therapy in the not-so-distant past. And Psychology has a very checkered history, e.g.: http://jeffreymasson.com/books/final-analysis.html http://jeffreymasson.com/books/final-analysis.html And a current replication crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology So some skepticism of the profession's claims is not entirely unwarranted. BTW, but for the defensive tone, I think your response was very good, and exactly the sort of thing that is needed in this discussion. I upvoted you again.

digler999 10y ago
I apologize, yes I was defensive. Probably because I need more practice having my ideas challenged. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I will work on it. (and thank you HN for somehow cultivating a community where we can have such a forum). Absolutely, I agree that the field is not perfect. Let me address the link you sent (I haven't read the book): Psychoanalysis (also called the psychodynamic method) is but one of several prominent forms of therapy. I've never undertaken it, as I cannot afford to go 3hrs/week for a year or more, so I cannot talk from experience. I have read quite a bit about it from textbooks and I see a lot of merit to at least the theory. Merit, I say, because it appeared to corroborate with anecdotal evidence from my own life. I have seen the pattern in people, over and over again, who re-enact the behaviors they learned during their youth. You particularly hear about it with domestic violence: girls that grow up seeing mommy getting beat up (somehow) (very often) seem to become attracted to violent men and repeat the cycle. Boys who grow up seeing daddy beat up mommy (tend to) become aggressive toward women when they are adults. So I don't personally think the entire field of psychoanalysis is bullshit. The books I've read said that a good psychoanalyst can shake the patient to their core. It sounds like they are trained to sniff out the patient's malignant / self-defeating behaviors and show them how they are reenacting them in the therapeutic relationship. From there, I don't know exactly how they motivate change, but once they break you down on such a primitive emotional level, once your defenses are removed and layed before you, it makes sense that you would be weakened enough to consider making a change. So that's my case for psychoanalysis. Now, of course someone could take advantage of that. Maybe a patient is simply bipolar and their problems have nothing to do with reenacting their mom's abuse cycle. An unethical therapist could take advantage of that and milk the patient for 3 years' therapy and then say "oh yeah actually you just need to be on meds". It's malpractice and I'm sure it goes on every day in the medical field. MD's milking medicare. experienced dr's running unnecessary tests "just to be sure" when they know exactly whats wrong. Doing an X-ray in the hospital instead of an outpatient clinic so they can charge 3X more. Malpractice will always be around both in medicine and psychology.