5 ms·

"Gary Greenberg is a practicing psychotherapist" What evidence does Gary Greenberg provide in his writings that would convince a skeptical onlooker that what h

"Gary Greenberg is a practicing psychotherapist" What evidence does Gary Greenberg provide in his writings that would convince a skeptical onlooker that what he does for his patients is helpful?

lutusp 13y ago
> What evidence does Gary Greenberg provide in his writings that would convince a skeptical onlooker that what he does for his patients is helpful? The same question could be asked of any psychologist, psychotherapist or psychiatrist, regardless of their publication record. There are no objective, scientific, rigorous evaluation criteria anywhere in the field, which explain why the mental health field has the reputation it does. No one asked it of Diederik Stapel, and, in spite of his enviable publication record and fame, he turned out the be a total fraud: Link: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-repor... Quote: " In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true."
- gohrt 13y ago
  That quote may have been in context of a psychiatry study, but applies equaly well to huge swathes of medical research.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    With one important difference -- when a medical procedure or substance is shown to be useless or dangerous, doctors stop using it or go to jail. By contrast, psychologists just carry on with business as usual -- for example, there are still therapists offering recovered memory therapy. If a medical drug were proven ineffective as anti-depression drugs have, doctors would have to stop prescribing it or be sued for malpractice. You can't sue psychologists for malpractice, because there's no such thing as good psychological practice for comparison. If psychologists were forced to adopt evidence-based practice, they would be subject to lawsuits for the first time, which is why they have resisted such proposals: Link: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/pc.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/pc.aspx Quote: "Some APA members have asked me why I have chosen to sponsor an APA Presidential Initiative on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Psychology, expressing fears that the results might be used against psychologists by managed-care companies and malpractice lawyers." The critics were right -- evidence-based practice would have been a disaster for psychology -- and the proposal (2005) was shouted down.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > If a medical drug were proven ineffective as anti-depression drugs have, doctors would have to stop prescribing it or be sued for malpractice. Anti-depressive (and other psychiatric) drugs are a subset of "medical drugs". > You can't sue psychologists for malpractice, because there's no such thing as good psychological practice for comparison. You can, in fact, sue a psyschologist for malpractice [1], but a psychologist isn't going to be prescribing anti-depressants in the first place (and, if they try to, they've got bigger legal problems than potential malpractice, starting with practicing medicine without a license.) [1] e.g., http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.h...
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > Anti-depressive (and other psychiatric) drugs are a subset of "medical drugs". No, they are not. Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. There are some medical drugs that are prescribed off-label to treat mental conditions, but that's a shady practice (albeit a common one). > You can, in fact, sue a psyschologist for malpractice ... Yes, but you can't compare what he does to effective practices, because there aren't any. This is why such cases are so rare, and why malpractice insurance is nearly unheard of among psychiatrists and psychologists. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have ruined the lives of their clients but proved immune to prosecution -- for example, the psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs that killed Rebecca Riley was eventually allowed to continue practicing psychiatry, and was neither prosecuted or sued (Rebecca's father was convicted of first-degree murder, her mother of second-degree murder). http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/hold_for_verdic_1.html http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/hold_... Quote: "Shortly after Rebecca died, Kifuji had entered into a voluntary agreement with the board to halt her practice. But two years later, after a grand jury declined to indict her and the board conducted its own inquiry, the board last fall allowed her to return to practice. She is currently seeing patients at Tufts Medical Center." > ... but a psychologist isn't going to be prescribing anti-depressants True, unless by the term "psychologist" we mean anyone practicing clinical psychology, in the same way that a physicist practices physics -- a way of speaking that groups particle physicists and cosmologists together, two fields much less alike than psychiatry and clinical psychology.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  I think you are saying that we can't be sure that the author of the article kindly submitted here really knows what he is talking about. Diederik Stapel is a disgrace, http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/measure-by-measure-diederik-stapel-count-rises-again-to-54/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/measure-by-m... but he also hasn't had any influence on the clinical practice of psychiatry in the United States, the main topic of the article.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I think you are saying that we can't be sure that the author of the article kindly submitted here really knows what he is talking about. That's true in all intellectual pursuits, and particularly true in science -- there are no truths, only evidence. > ... but he also hasn't had any influence on the clinical practice of psychiatry in the United States, the main topic of the article. He published in the same journals as U.S. researchers and therapists, working to the same standards (or lack thereof) and with the same contempt for science that is a hallmark of the field. It certainly does indict the entire field, or do you think Europe is located on a different planet? Since you seem to think Holland is located on an alien moon, here's a similar recent scandal involving a Harvard professor: http://chronicle.com/article/Marc-Hauser-Resigns-From/128296/ http://chronicle.com/article/Marc-Hauser-Resigns-From/128296... Quote: "Marc D. Hauser, the Harvard psychologist found responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct by the university, has resigned ..." In scientific fields, such misbehavior isn't tolerated, and exposures of this kind end careers (example Jan Hendrik Schön, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal). Hauser, on the other hand, is, in his own words, moving on, exploring "some exciting opportunities in the private sector" and that he had been involved in some "extremely interesting and rewarding work focusing on the educational needs of at-risk teenagers." So this public fraud, this person who holds science and professional responsibility in contempt, is going to be allowed to treat at-risk teenagers? Only in psychology.

"Gary Greenberg is a practicing psychotherapist" What evidence does Gary Greenberg provide in his writings that would convince a skeptical onlooker that what he does for his patients is helpful?

lutusp 13y ago

> What evidence does Gary Greenberg provide in his writings that would convince a skeptical onlooker that what he does for his patients is helpful? The same question could be asked of any psychologist, psychotherapist or psychiatrist, regardless of their publication record. There are no objective, scientific, rigorous evaluation criteria anywhere in the field, which explain why the mental health field has the reputation it does. No one asked it of Diederik Stapel, and, in spite of his enviable publication record and fame, he turned out the be a total fraud: Link: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-repor... Quote: " In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true."

gohrt 13y ago
That quote may have been in context of a psychiatry study, but applies equaly well to huge swathes of medical research.
- lutusp 13y ago
  With one important difference -- when a medical procedure or substance is shown to be useless or dangerous, doctors stop using it or go to jail. By contrast, psychologists just carry on with business as usual -- for example, there are still therapists offering recovered memory therapy. If a medical drug were proven ineffective as anti-depression drugs have, doctors would have to stop prescribing it or be sued for malpractice. You can't sue psychologists for malpractice, because there's no such thing as good psychological practice for comparison. If psychologists were forced to adopt evidence-based practice, they would be subject to lawsuits for the first time, which is why they have resisted such proposals: Link: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/pc.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/pc.aspx Quote: "Some APA members have asked me why I have chosen to sponsor an APA Presidential Initiative on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Psychology, expressing fears that the results might be used against psychologists by managed-care companies and malpractice lawyers." The critics were right -- evidence-based practice would have been a disaster for psychology -- and the proposal (2005) was shouted down.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > If a medical drug were proven ineffective as anti-depression drugs have, doctors would have to stop prescribing it or be sued for malpractice. Anti-depressive (and other psychiatric) drugs are a subset of "medical drugs". > You can't sue psychologists for malpractice, because there's no such thing as good psychological practice for comparison. You can, in fact, sue a psyschologist for malpractice [1], but a psychologist isn't going to be prescribing anti-depressants in the first place (and, if they try to, they've got bigger legal problems than potential malpractice, starting with practicing medicine without a license.) [1] e.g., http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.h...
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Anti-depressive (and other psychiatric) drugs are a subset of "medical drugs". No, they are not. Medical drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions, not psychological ones. There are some medical drugs that are prescribed off-label to treat mental conditions, but that's a shady practice (albeit a common one). > You can, in fact, sue a psyschologist for malpractice ... Yes, but you can't compare what he does to effective practices, because there aren't any. This is why such cases are so rare, and why malpractice insurance is nearly unheard of among psychiatrists and psychologists. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have ruined the lives of their clients but proved immune to prosecution -- for example, the psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs that killed Rebecca Riley was eventually allowed to continue practicing psychiatry, and was neither prosecuted or sued (Rebecca's father was convicted of first-degree murder, her mother of second-degree murder). http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/hold_for_verdic_1.html http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/hold_... Quote: "Shortly after Rebecca died, Kifuji had entered into a voluntary agreement with the board to halt her practice. But two years later, after a grand jury declined to indict her and the board conducted its own inquiry, the board last fall allowed her to return to practice. She is currently seeing patients at Tufts Medical Center." > ... but a psychologist isn't going to be prescribing anti-depressants True, unless by the term "psychologist" we mean anyone practicing clinical psychology, in the same way that a physicist practices physics -- a way of speaking that groups particle physicists and cosmologists together, two fields much less alike than psychiatry and clinical psychology.
tokenadult 13y ago
I think you are saying that we can't be sure that the author of the article kindly submitted here really knows what he is talking about. Diederik Stapel is a disgrace, http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/measure-by-measure-diederik-stapel-count-rises-again-to-54/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/measure-by-m... but he also hasn't had any influence on the clinical practice of psychiatry in the United States, the main topic of the article.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I think you are saying that we can't be sure that the author of the article kindly submitted here really knows what he is talking about. That's true in all intellectual pursuits, and particularly true in science -- there are no truths, only evidence. > ... but he also hasn't had any influence on the clinical practice of psychiatry in the United States, the main topic of the article. He published in the same journals as U.S. researchers and therapists, working to the same standards (or lack thereof) and with the same contempt for science that is a hallmark of the field. It certainly does indict the entire field, or do you think Europe is located on a different planet? Since you seem to think Holland is located on an alien moon, here's a similar recent scandal involving a Harvard professor: http://chronicle.com/article/Marc-Hauser-Resigns-From/128296/ http://chronicle.com/article/Marc-Hauser-Resigns-From/128296... Quote: "Marc D. Hauser, the Harvard psychologist found responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct by the university, has resigned ..." In scientific fields, such misbehavior isn't tolerated, and exposures of this kind end careers (example Jan Hendrik Schön, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal). Hauser, on the other hand, is, in his own words, moving on, exploring "some exciting opportunities in the private sector" and that he had been involved in some "extremely interesting and rewarding work focusing on the educational needs of at-risk teenagers." So this public fraud, this person who holds science and professional responsibility in contempt, is going to be allowed to treat at-risk teenagers? Only in psychology.