3 ms·

> softest of sciences, but labeling it as non-science would be ridiculous It is about as scientific as chiropractics and acupuncture, full of anecdote and very

by jjcon 4y ago

> softest of sciences, but labeling it as non-science would be ridiculous It is about as scientific as chiropractics and acupuncture, full of anecdote and very little substance, you even provided some yourself. How can you possibly trust much of anything coming out of those disciplines when the majority of papers can't even be replicated?

comfypotato 4y ago
[flagged]
- jjcon 4y ago
  > You appear to have no vested interest in someone who claims to have benefitted from therapy, and it’s very apparent you don’t see a therapist yourself. I could replace therapy in that sentence with chiropractics or acupuncture and it would express an equally meaningless platitude. > Suggesting that the recent decades of funding and research in the general psychology domain haven’t yielded good results is humorously ignorant. And yet if we look at populations (as we do to benchmark real medicine) in much of the western world deaths from despair are up, depression and anxiety are up, population happiness is trending down. What a testament to those decades of research. > From this perspective, you “having a problem” with it makes you look like a sociopath This is a clear violation of HN rules, I suggest you take a look at them. What I have a problem with is people being duped into spending tons of money by charlatans. People in need spend money on tons of things they are convinced help them (supplements, psychics, acupuncture etc), that isn't evidence of their utility.
  - comfypotato 4y ago
    > clear violation of HN rules Sorry. Also, it’s not directed at you but rather someone who would deny another what they knew to be good medicine. It would be valid, in that case, would it not? (Still against the rules, I guess. I wouldn’t mind being banned for accurately labeling a sociopath; that would be a decent signal to spend my time elsewhere.) You actually believe therapy to be a complete farce, which I hadn’t comprehended before this point. Read some systematic literature review abstracts. Parse some statistics. Ask a physician you trust to explain it to you. Research doesn’t suggest that therapy improves the lives of everyone but rather that it’s effective treatment for disease. You could similarly find papers that say the same thing about acupuncture or chiropractors: when I say “research” here, I’m referring to many orders of magnitudes more psychology papers. Tens of thousands would pass your replication crisis criticism criteria.
johnchristopher 4y ago
You really should take that chip on your shoulder to a therapist or a surgeon rather than on HN though. Acid comments won't help people consider your point of view if exposed with such aggression.
tsimionescu 4y ago
Simple:because, unlike chiropractic and acupuncture, some papers can be replicated.

by jjcon 4y ago

comfypotato 4y ago

[flagged]

jjcon 4y ago
> You appear to have no vested interest in someone who claims to have benefitted from therapy, and it’s very apparent you don’t see a therapist yourself. I could replace therapy in that sentence with chiropractics or acupuncture and it would express an equally meaningless platitude. > Suggesting that the recent decades of funding and research in the general psychology domain haven’t yielded good results is humorously ignorant. And yet if we look at populations (as we do to benchmark real medicine) in much of the western world deaths from despair are up, depression and anxiety are up, population happiness is trending down. What a testament to those decades of research. > From this perspective, you “having a problem” with it makes you look like a sociopath This is a clear violation of HN rules, I suggest you take a look at them. What I have a problem with is people being duped into spending tons of money by charlatans. People in need spend money on tons of things they are convinced help them (supplements, psychics, acupuncture etc), that isn't evidence of their utility.
- comfypotato 4y ago
  > clear violation of HN rules Sorry. Also, it’s not directed at you but rather someone who would deny another what they knew to be good medicine. It would be valid, in that case, would it not? (Still against the rules, I guess. I wouldn’t mind being banned for accurately labeling a sociopath; that would be a decent signal to spend my time elsewhere.) You actually believe therapy to be a complete farce, which I hadn’t comprehended before this point. Read some systematic literature review abstracts. Parse some statistics. Ask a physician you trust to explain it to you. Research doesn’t suggest that therapy improves the lives of everyone but rather that it’s effective treatment for disease. You could similarly find papers that say the same thing about acupuncture or chiropractors: when I say “research” here, I’m referring to many orders of magnitudes more psychology papers. Tens of thousands would pass your replication crisis criticism criteria.

johnchristopher 4y ago

You really should take that chip on your shoulder to a therapist or a surgeon rather than on HN though. Acid comments won't help people consider your point of view if exposed with such aggression.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Simple:because, unlike chiropractic and acupuncture, some papers can be replicated.