4 ms·

Do we know for sure psychotherapy can cure most psychological problems completely and permanently? I'd like to see your sources. There are issues like: https:/

by rini17 2y ago

Do we know for sure psychotherapy can cure most psychological problems completely and permanently? I'd like to see your sources. There are issues like: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/matter-personality/201212/why-psychotherapy-efficacy-studies-are-nearly-impossible https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/matter-personality/2...

M95D 2y ago
I don't have sources, but a few people I know had their issues resolved and I noticed over the years they didn't relapse. There were a few others which abandoned therapy and weren't fine - I guess those are the people counted to failure rate - but was it the fault of psychology I wonder?
- rini17 2y ago
  Not interested in blaming psychology or anything else. Just wanted to know why you sound so sure of that. Regardless of whether psychology is effective or not quite, I think epistemic hell is involved. Very good explanation: https://www.secretorum.life/p/epistemic-hell https://www.secretorum.life/p/epistemic-hell
  - M95D 2y ago
    I'm not sure. I know my point of view could be biased. I was surprised myself about what others told me. But it doesn't matter. I think we can both agree that psychology today isn't at the level it was 100 years ago - it's a sudden improvement that didn't happen for thousands of years. The discussion was about the "why did it take so long", or "why now". @mrkeen argued that it was the scientific method. I'm not convinced. The scientific method was used since 1800s, I think, yet 150 more years passed with not much happening in this field. - Was it the consequences of war in the age of bombs, mines, gas, machine guns? - Was it Freud that made psychology a science? - Was it marketing that gave a boost in research?
    - rini17 2y ago
      I would agree only if psychology caused some kind of progress to increase life expectancy or reduce violence. Which I'm not really aware of...so if not that, what was the improvement?

by rini17 2y ago

M95D 2y ago

I don't have sources, but a few people I know had their issues resolved and I noticed over the years they didn't relapse. There were a few others which abandoned therapy and weren't fine - I guess those are the people counted to failure rate - but was it the fault of psychology I wonder?

rini17 2y ago
Not interested in blaming psychology or anything else. Just wanted to know why you sound so sure of that. Regardless of whether psychology is effective or not quite, I think epistemic hell is involved. Very good explanation: https://www.secretorum.life/p/epistemic-hell https://www.secretorum.life/p/epistemic-hell
- M95D 2y ago
  I'm not sure. I know my point of view could be biased. I was surprised myself about what others told me. But it doesn't matter. I think we can both agree that psychology today isn't at the level it was 100 years ago - it's a sudden improvement that didn't happen for thousands of years. The discussion was about the "why did it take so long", or "why now". @mrkeen argued that it was the scientific method. I'm not convinced. The scientific method was used since 1800s, I think, yet 150 more years passed with not much happening in this field. - Was it the consequences of war in the age of bombs, mines, gas, machine guns? - Was it Freud that made psychology a science? - Was it marketing that gave a boost in research?
  - rini17 2y ago
    I would agree only if psychology caused some kind of progress to increase life expectancy or reduce violence. Which I'm not really aware of...so if not that, what was the improvement?