6 ms·

> I have to be honest, none of those are particularly convincing, and spamming a bunch of disconnected quotes from a Wikipedia page isn’t a great argument It w

> I have to be honest, none of those are particularly convincing, and spamming a bunch of disconnected quotes from a Wikipedia page isn’t a great argument It was not an argument. It was an answer to the parent poster which requested a citation. Which is why I gave him citations. And if such a large list of citations from many experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, history, cognitive science, etc, including many scientists and hell, even (at least) one Nobel prize winner, doesn't convince you... then I'm sorry to tell you this, but I don't think there could be anything that would convince you. And I'm not sure why you think that you are more qualified than all of them to judge this.

bowsamic 4y ago
I would be much more convinced by a modern meta analysis The problem is that I’m a physicist so I see a wiki page with a bunch of quotes from people of all disciplines including a physicist who was famously a huge sceptic of psychiatry and I think of all the physics pages that have all these “opinions” that are wrong Very few of those quotes mention evidence of outcomes of psychoanalysis but only mention very specific parts of it being questionable. I think you’re jumping the gun a bit. Don’t worry, that’s very common among people who are newer to science
- wizeman 4y ago
  > I would be much more convinced by a modern meta analysis There are many modern meta analysis assessing the (in)efficacy of psychoanalysis and comparing it to other approaches, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (which is the gold standard nowadays) and other approaches, which back my arguments. I am not really interested in going more deeply about this, but I encourage you to research it, if you are interested. There is a lot of research about this. And by the way, I am sure that you can also find meta analysis which will tell you that psychoanalysis works. This does not mean that it is necessarily true (or at least, not for the reasons that people think it is true), for various reasons, some of which I'm sure you can deduce. The problems with psychoanalysis are not just about its (substandard) efficacy. There are many other troubling issues with this practice. This is why it is important to follow a field of study and what current scientists, field practicioners/experts and academics know (from various disciplines and fields of study, in order to get a consensus as best as possible), and not just read some isolated meta analysis and extrapolate conclusions from it. > I think you’re jumping the gun a bit. I think what I'm talking about is pretty well established at this point, it's not news for someone who works in this field. I suggest you do more research before arguing about a field you don't seem knowledgeable about.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    You are no more knowledgeable than me. You just quoted the wiki page lol
    - wizeman 4y ago
      I quoted the wiki page because the parent poster requested citations. It has no relevance with regards to my knowledge.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    What meta analysis shows the inefficacy of psychoanalysis? Despite being apparently on the side of science, you didn’t bother to cite any actual science. Ironic
    - wizeman 4y ago
      > What meta analysis shows the inefficacy of psychoanalysis? Despite being apparently on the side of science, you didn’t bother to cite any actual science. Ironic Look, if you are so interested in this, why don't you do the research yourself? I literally just googled "meta-analysis psychoanalysis" and the very first link that came up [1] was, surprisingly, a meta-analysis about psychoanalysis which concluded the abstract with the following phrase: "In contrast to previous reviews, we found the evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP [long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy] to be limited and at best conflicting." I'm not interested in wasting more of my time on this topic, so don't expect any more replies. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/
      - philosopher1234 4y ago
        Here’s a study from a month or two ago (10 years after your meta analysis) with n=216 and long term follow up showing (high, increasing) efficacy. You seem confused about the conclusions there, that doesn’t discredit psychoanalysis, it encourages further study. And here is further study. You should try to be more rigorous in your thinking. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710086/

bowsamic 4y ago

I would be much more convinced by a modern meta analysis The problem is that I’m a physicist so I see a wiki page with a bunch of quotes from people of all disciplines including a physicist who was famously a huge sceptic of psychiatry and I think of all the physics pages that have all these “opinions” that are wrong Very few of those quotes mention evidence of outcomes of psychoanalysis but only mention very specific parts of it being questionable. I think you’re jumping the gun a bit. Don’t worry, that’s very common among people who are newer to science

wizeman 4y ago
> I would be much more convinced by a modern meta analysis There are many modern meta analysis assessing the (in)efficacy of psychoanalysis and comparing it to other approaches, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (which is the gold standard nowadays) and other approaches, which back my arguments. I am not really interested in going more deeply about this, but I encourage you to research it, if you are interested. There is a lot of research about this. And by the way, I am sure that you can also find meta analysis which will tell you that psychoanalysis works. This does not mean that it is necessarily true (or at least, not for the reasons that people think it is true), for various reasons, some of which I'm sure you can deduce. The problems with psychoanalysis are not just about its (substandard) efficacy. There are many other troubling issues with this practice. This is why it is important to follow a field of study and what current scientists, field practicioners/experts and academics know (from various disciplines and fields of study, in order to get a consensus as best as possible), and not just read some isolated meta analysis and extrapolate conclusions from it. > I think you’re jumping the gun a bit. I think what I'm talking about is pretty well established at this point, it's not news for someone who works in this field. I suggest you do more research before arguing about a field you don't seem knowledgeable about.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  You are no more knowledgeable than me. You just quoted the wiki page lol
  - wizeman 4y ago
    I quoted the wiki page because the parent poster requested citations. It has no relevance with regards to my knowledge.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  What meta analysis shows the inefficacy of psychoanalysis? Despite being apparently on the side of science, you didn’t bother to cite any actual science. Ironic
  - wizeman 4y ago
    > What meta analysis shows the inefficacy of psychoanalysis? Despite being apparently on the side of science, you didn’t bother to cite any actual science. Ironic Look, if you are so interested in this, why don't you do the research yourself? I literally just googled "meta-analysis psychoanalysis" and the very first link that came up [1] was, surprisingly, a meta-analysis about psychoanalysis which concluded the abstract with the following phrase: "In contrast to previous reviews, we found the evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP [long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy] to be limited and at best conflicting." I'm not interested in wasting more of my time on this topic, so don't expect any more replies. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      Here’s a study from a month or two ago (10 years after your meta analysis) with n=216 and long term follow up showing (high, increasing) efficacy. You seem confused about the conclusions there, that doesn’t discredit psychoanalysis, it encourages further study. And here is further study. You should try to be more rigorous in your thinking. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710086/