7 ms·

A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing

40 points by arikrak 12y ago

kendalk 12y ago
M-x doctor ?
lionheart 12y ago
Reality is really starting to catch up with sci-fi isn't it? Anybody else reminded of Sigfried Von Shrink from Gateway?
- satori99 12y ago
  I only read the article headline, and it was my first thought also!
keypusher 12y ago
Is this available online somewhere?
lutusp 12y ago
> A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing It's true, and this speaks volumes about the value of therapy as a profession. The reason? It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy. EDIT: Nothing is more annoying that anonymous cowards who, out of ignorance, consistently downvote posts consisting solely of easily verified facts.
- daeken 12y ago
  Ehh, I don't know about that conclusion. Just because people are more open doesn't mean that the therapy is effective. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. But at the end of the day, a good therapist (in my experience) is really just a sounding board that points you on the right direction. If you've had a recurring concern recently, they may be able to push the conversation in the right way to figure it out. For those who haven't seen a therapist, the best analogy I have is rubber duck debugging; it's not that the listener solves your problems, but rather that they allow you to help yourself.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Just because people are more open doesn't mean that the therapy is effective. But when therapy works, it's not because of a particular therapeutic method, or psychology, or psychiatry. This has been proven over and over again -- when therapy works, its because of the personal skills of the practitioner, not the school of thought to which he/she belongs. Studies show that in effectiveness, a therapist is indistinguishable from a sympathetic friend. For the majority of cases, the only reason therapists exist is the breakdown of the small village and a 19th century-style circle of neighbors and extended family. I say this because there is a widespread misconception that therapy is based in science. It isn't. It's based on a social vacuum caused by the breakdown of small communities of individuals who talked to each other. EDIT: Nothing is more annoying that anonymous cowards who, out of ignorance, consistently downvote posts consisting solely of easily verified facts.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - daeken 12y ago
      This is completely orthogonal to whether a virtual therapist is as effective as a real therapist, which is the subject of the story. If treatment A and treatment B are equally effective, that doesn't tell you anything about treatment C. I think we can both agree that talking to a therapist or talking to a sympathetic friend (as you mentioned) have some efficacy, so the question of whether a virtual therapist can give the same effect is relevant. Aside from all that, I'd love to read up on this research -- happen to have any links or recommended starting points? My knowledge of therapy simply comes from experience on both sides in the mental health field/community, not a scientific standpoint.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > This is completely orthogonal to whether a virtual therapist is as effective as a real therapist, which is the subject of the story. No, it's completely relevant. Can a scientist's work be automated? No, not really -- too much originality and depth of thought for modern AI to imitate. Can a hamburger cook's work be automated? Well, yes, indeed it's happening. If a virtual therapist is as effective as a real one, this calls into question the value of a real therapist, as well as the school of thought to which he/she belongs. It may be instructive to know that psychiatrists have given up on talk therapy entirely and are now pursuing what they call "biological psychiatry", which is something vaguely resembling neuroscience, but with a lot of drug prescriptions being written. > If treatment A and treatment B are equally effective, that doesn't tell you anything about treatment C. True, but it does suggest the Placebo Effect as an explanation for the lack of difference. As it happens, a number of studies that compared therapies have come to that conclusion. > Aside from all that, I'd love to read up on this research -- happen to have any links or recommended starting points? Sure -- start here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science Then go here: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology Then here: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiat...
- Broken_Hippo 12y ago
  Full disclosure: a paywall prevents me from actually reading the article. However, to your comment, I would say that this doesn't actually prove that people can treat themselves. If it were proven that people truly are competent to treat themselves, I think more people would have done so. Once you are in a cycle of despair, it isn't always easy to see any way out. Every single option is void of hope of any sort. Broken hope. Virtual therapy is hope in itself. I remember my parents taking me to a therapist when I was 14-15. I got caught shoplifting and they wanted to make sure I was ok. I really wasn't - I know now that I'd been mildly depressed for years by that point - but the therapy was wasted. Why? A combination of the man being a Christian therapist (still with degrees) and them making me sign a release form - nothing I said to the man was private from my own parents. This was not a safe place and I never trusted the man. No trust and a high likelihood of judgement from multiple parties (and a high chance of disproval or over-attention) made me shut up. Virtual? I'd consider that now, especially if for free. Best of all, it is private. Safe. No one could even see me go into the therapists office. Other people have issues trying to find a therapist that they click with. A computer is allowed to be off, to be a little cold, to be somewhat matter-of-fact: Humans need a bit of caring and empathy to go along with it. So much of the stuff online seems like a scam. My father, during a depressed phase, spent a thousand or two on a program that basically said 'think yourself happy'. Common advice, which doesn't work. Also basic is 'just have faith in god (generally christian, but not always) and it will pass'. Actual help in any form is in short supply. Good sources stop well before practical help and tell you to talk to someone. If my words sound a bit crazy, and not like normal people think, good. This is the stuff I have dealt with for the last 25 years or so in varying degrees. I generally haven't had access to a therapist or even be able to afford a doctor, so I'm just stuck. It isn't always bad, but it is always in the background.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > I would say that this doesn't actually prove that people can treat themselves. Yes, true, it proves nothing. It only suggests it. > If it were proven that people truly are competent to treat themselves, I think more people would have done so. Not if they think psychologists are doctors. Not if the real point is to have a conversation with a sympathetic listener who isn't a machine. There are plenty of reasons a virtual therapist wouldn't work, apart from the technical content of the therapy. > ... nothing I said to the man was private from my own parents. I've read cases like that also, and IMHO it's criminal to create a quid pro quo in which the advantage of a sympathetic listener is undercut by the fact that anything can be revealed to the parents, who are often the real problem. > Best of all, it is private. Maybe. If this virtual therapy thing takes off, people are going to have to be very careful about how the transactions are handled. The content of the sessions would be a gold mine, and I'm sure people will try to offer online therapy sessions with a way to preserve the session content for "research", all explained in excruciatingly small print. > I generally haven't had access to a therapist or even be able to afford a doctor, so I'm just stuck. This is not to diminish your situation or pretend to understand you, but there was a time when a sympathetic friend would have been the obvious remedy.
tomjen3 12y ago
Is there a startup working on making this accessible to the average person? I could see a huge advantage in paying, say 30 usd, a month for access to a shrink, as I believe most people could use one, much like even those of us who are not 300 pounds could benefit from a nutritionist.
- ytjohn 12y ago
  It'll be a free app from Google (probably an extension to Google Now). Of course, your sessions will remain private within Google and only archived for automatic analysis by computers to improve the overall experience. You may notice improvements in your search results and targeted advertising as a result. Shortly thereafter, Apple will announce "Tini", Apple's iShrink and Siri's cousin.
emiliobumachar 12y ago
From the title, I expected some evidence that the AI was better than an actual human. That's not the case. The comparison was AI transparent vs. AI posing as human. The posing AI could be arbitrarily worse than an actual human and still be better than itself when not posing.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > From the title, I expected some evidence that the AI was better than an actual human. That's not the case. We don't know that. It's not that it's false, but that the evidence is not clear one way or the other -- it's just speculation at the moment. We do know that programs like ELIZA, crude as they were, made many people feel that something worthwhile was taking place. In one case, a test subject asked Weizenbaum (ELIZA's originator) to leave the room so she could have a private conversation with the therapist.
atomicfiredoll 12y ago
It sounds an awful lot like the modern equivalent of ELIZA's doctor script. I'm sure Joseph Weizenbaum is turning in his grave.
girvo 12y ago
Not quite the same thing, but self studied online CBT was the final nail in the coffin of my depression. I highly suggest checking it out for those who struggle with it, it helped me so much.
- innguest 12y ago
  I'm curious. Could you point me to some links? Searching those keywords did not yield good results.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    MoodGym is often mentioneed - https://moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome https://moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome There are others. Here's a bit of information from the UK advice: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA97/chapter/4-Evidence-and-interpretation http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA97/chapter/4-Evidence-and-...
    - girvo 12y ago
      MoodGym is the one I used, I highly recommend it :)
  - hga 12y ago
    Well, ignoring the on-line aspect, this is the standard beginning book: http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380810336/ http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood-Therapy/dp/03808... I read and used the early '80s edition, before the "behavioral" was added to it, and around a decade or so ago realized that learning and following it made further talking therapy essentially useless. The theory behind the "cognitive" part of it, simply put, is that thinking bad, not to mention incorrect, thoughts about yourself makes you feel bad. Adjusting your mental filters and the like to reality can then make a very big difference. (Not, in my case, a complete cure, I've got an inherited refractory depression that my doctors and I supposize is bipolar in nature, I just never go manic nor cycle all that much. Adding a SSRI to the mix significantly improves it.)
  - bobowzki 12y ago
minikomi 12y ago
How does A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing make you feel?
- lutusp 12y ago
  I would take it as a hopeful sign that we can cure ourselves with a little virtual assistance. Not unlike a spreadsheet to organize our thoughts about finances.
  - minikomi 12y ago
    Good, tell me more about these feelings.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      It would be fun to watch two copies of ELIZA interrogating each other. :)
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Tried that years ago. Gets in a loop.
- emotionalcode 12y ago
  There is no other mind to think about being judged by. That's often the source of the lingering issues I have.
- mjklin 12y ago
  That's interesting, please go on.
goldenkey 12y ago
Kind of peculiar that I just watched the Zero Theorem tonight. Christopher Waltz talks to a computerized shrink in the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zmDElFUUBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zmDElFUUBw
goldenkey 12y ago
Kind of peculiar that I just watched the Zero Theorem tonight. Christopher Waltz talks to a computerized shrink in the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zmDElFUUBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zmDElFUUBw
bcaine 12y ago
Here is a video from a year ago showing the virtual shrink in action (it may be an older version): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejczMs6b1Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejczMs6b1Q4

40 points by arikrak 12y ago

kendalk 12y ago

M-x doctor ?

lionheart 12y ago

Reality is really starting to catch up with sci-fi isn't it? Anybody else reminded of Sigfried Von Shrink from Gateway?

satori99 12y ago
I only read the article headline, and it was my first thought also!

keypusher 12y ago

Is this available online somewhere?

lutusp 12y ago

> A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing It's true, and this speaks volumes about the value of therapy as a profession. The reason? It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy. EDIT: Nothing is more annoying that anonymous cowards who, out of ignorance, consistently downvote posts consisting solely of easily verified facts.

daeken 12y ago
Ehh, I don't know about that conclusion. Just because people are more open doesn't mean that the therapy is effective. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. But at the end of the day, a good therapist (in my experience) is really just a sounding board that points you on the right direction. If you've had a recurring concern recently, they may be able to push the conversation in the right way to figure it out. For those who haven't seen a therapist, the best analogy I have is rubber duck debugging; it's not that the listener solves your problems, but rather that they allow you to help yourself.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Just because people are more open doesn't mean that the therapy is effective. But when therapy works, it's not because of a particular therapeutic method, or psychology, or psychiatry. This has been proven over and over again -- when therapy works, its because of the personal skills of the practitioner, not the school of thought to which he/she belongs. Studies show that in effectiveness, a therapist is indistinguishable from a sympathetic friend. For the majority of cases, the only reason therapists exist is the breakdown of the small village and a 19th century-style circle of neighbors and extended family. I say this because there is a widespread misconception that therapy is based in science. It isn't. It's based on a social vacuum caused by the breakdown of small communities of individuals who talked to each other. EDIT: Nothing is more annoying that anonymous cowards who, out of ignorance, consistently downvote posts consisting solely of easily verified facts.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - daeken 12y ago
    This is completely orthogonal to whether a virtual therapist is as effective as a real therapist, which is the subject of the story. If treatment A and treatment B are equally effective, that doesn't tell you anything about treatment C. I think we can both agree that talking to a therapist or talking to a sympathetic friend (as you mentioned) have some efficacy, so the question of whether a virtual therapist can give the same effect is relevant. Aside from all that, I'd love to read up on this research -- happen to have any links or recommended starting points? My knowledge of therapy simply comes from experience on both sides in the mental health field/community, not a scientific standpoint.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > This is completely orthogonal to whether a virtual therapist is as effective as a real therapist, which is the subject of the story. No, it's completely relevant. Can a scientist's work be automated? No, not really -- too much originality and depth of thought for modern AI to imitate. Can a hamburger cook's work be automated? Well, yes, indeed it's happening. If a virtual therapist is as effective as a real one, this calls into question the value of a real therapist, as well as the school of thought to which he/she belongs. It may be instructive to know that psychiatrists have given up on talk therapy entirely and are now pursuing what they call "biological psychiatry", which is something vaguely resembling neuroscience, but with a lot of drug prescriptions being written. > If treatment A and treatment B are equally effective, that doesn't tell you anything about treatment C. True, but it does suggest the Placebo Effect as an explanation for the lack of difference. As it happens, a number of studies that compared therapies have come to that conclusion. > Aside from all that, I'd love to read up on this research -- happen to have any links or recommended starting points? Sure -- start here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science Then go here: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology Then here: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiat...
Broken_Hippo 12y ago
Full disclosure: a paywall prevents me from actually reading the article. However, to your comment, I would say that this doesn't actually prove that people can treat themselves. If it were proven that people truly are competent to treat themselves, I think more people would have done so. Once you are in a cycle of despair, it isn't always easy to see any way out. Every single option is void of hope of any sort. Broken hope. Virtual therapy is hope in itself. I remember my parents taking me to a therapist when I was 14-15. I got caught shoplifting and they wanted to make sure I was ok. I really wasn't - I know now that I'd been mildly depressed for years by that point - but the therapy was wasted. Why? A combination of the man being a Christian therapist (still with degrees) and them making me sign a release form - nothing I said to the man was private from my own parents. This was not a safe place and I never trusted the man. No trust and a high likelihood of judgement from multiple parties (and a high chance of disproval or over-attention) made me shut up. Virtual? I'd consider that now, especially if for free. Best of all, it is private. Safe. No one could even see me go into the therapists office. Other people have issues trying to find a therapist that they click with. A computer is allowed to be off, to be a little cold, to be somewhat matter-of-fact: Humans need a bit of caring and empathy to go along with it. So much of the stuff online seems like a scam. My father, during a depressed phase, spent a thousand or two on a program that basically said 'think yourself happy'. Common advice, which doesn't work. Also basic is 'just have faith in god (generally christian, but not always) and it will pass'. Actual help in any form is in short supply. Good sources stop well before practical help and tell you to talk to someone. If my words sound a bit crazy, and not like normal people think, good. This is the stuff I have dealt with for the last 25 years or so in varying degrees. I generally haven't had access to a therapist or even be able to afford a doctor, so I'm just stuck. It isn't always bad, but it is always in the background.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I would say that this doesn't actually prove that people can treat themselves. Yes, true, it proves nothing. It only suggests it. > If it were proven that people truly are competent to treat themselves, I think more people would have done so. Not if they think psychologists are doctors. Not if the real point is to have a conversation with a sympathetic listener who isn't a machine. There are plenty of reasons a virtual therapist wouldn't work, apart from the technical content of the therapy. > ... nothing I said to the man was private from my own parents. I've read cases like that also, and IMHO it's criminal to create a quid pro quo in which the advantage of a sympathetic listener is undercut by the fact that anything can be revealed to the parents, who are often the real problem. > Best of all, it is private. Maybe. If this virtual therapy thing takes off, people are going to have to be very careful about how the transactions are handled. The content of the sessions would be a gold mine, and I'm sure people will try to offer online therapy sessions with a way to preserve the session content for "research", all explained in excruciatingly small print. > I generally haven't had access to a therapist or even be able to afford a doctor, so I'm just stuck. This is not to diminish your situation or pretend to understand you, but there was a time when a sympathetic friend would have been the obvious remedy.

tomjen3 12y ago

Is there a startup working on making this accessible to the average person? I could see a huge advantage in paying, say 30 usd, a month for access to a shrink, as I believe most people could use one, much like even those of us who are not 300 pounds could benefit from a nutritionist.

ytjohn 12y ago
It'll be a free app from Google (probably an extension to Google Now). Of course, your sessions will remain private within Google and only archived for automatic analysis by computers to improve the overall experience. You may notice improvements in your search results and targeted advertising as a result. Shortly thereafter, Apple will announce "Tini", Apple's iShrink and Siri's cousin.

emiliobumachar 12y ago

From the title, I expected some evidence that the AI was better than an actual human. That's not the case. The comparison was AI transparent vs. AI posing as human. The posing AI could be arbitrarily worse than an actual human and still be better than itself when not posing.

lutusp 12y ago
> From the title, I expected some evidence that the AI was better than an actual human. That's not the case. We don't know that. It's not that it's false, but that the evidence is not clear one way or the other -- it's just speculation at the moment. We do know that programs like ELIZA, crude as they were, made many people feel that something worthwhile was taking place. In one case, a test subject asked Weizenbaum (ELIZA's originator) to leave the room so she could have a private conversation with the therapist.

atomicfiredoll 12y ago

It sounds an awful lot like the modern equivalent of ELIZA's doctor script. I'm sure Joseph Weizenbaum is turning in his grave.

girvo 12y ago

Not quite the same thing, but self studied online CBT was the final nail in the coffin of my depression. I highly suggest checking it out for those who struggle with it, it helped me so much.

innguest 12y ago
I'm curious. Could you point me to some links? Searching those keywords did not yield good results.
- DanBC 12y ago
  MoodGym is often mentioneed - https://moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome https://moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome There are others. Here's a bit of information from the UK advice: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA97/chapter/4-Evidence-and-interpretation http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA97/chapter/4-Evidence-and-...
  - girvo 12y ago
    MoodGym is the one I used, I highly recommend it :)
- hga 12y ago
  Well, ignoring the on-line aspect, this is the standard beginning book: http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380810336/ http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood-Therapy/dp/03808... I read and used the early '80s edition, before the "behavioral" was added to it, and around a decade or so ago realized that learning and following it made further talking therapy essentially useless. The theory behind the "cognitive" part of it, simply put, is that thinking bad, not to mention incorrect, thoughts about yourself makes you feel bad. Adjusting your mental filters and the like to reality can then make a very big difference. (Not, in my case, a complete cure, I've got an inherited refractory depression that my doctors and I supposize is bipolar in nature, I just never go manic nor cycle all that much. Adding a SSRI to the mix significantly improves it.)
- bobowzki 12y ago

minikomi 12y ago

How does A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing make you feel?

lutusp 12y ago
I would take it as a hopeful sign that we can cure ourselves with a little virtual assistance. Not unlike a spreadsheet to organize our thoughts about finances.
- minikomi 12y ago
  Good, tell me more about these feelings.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    It would be fun to watch two copies of ELIZA interrogating each other. :)
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Tried that years ago. Gets in a loop.
emotionalcode 12y ago
There is no other mind to think about being judged by. That's often the source of the lingering issues I have.
mjklin 12y ago
That's interesting, please go on.

goldenkey 12y ago

Kind of peculiar that I just watched the Zero Theorem tonight. Christopher Waltz talks to a computerized shrink in the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zmDElFUUBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zmDElFUUBw

goldenkey 12y ago

bcaine 12y ago

Here is a video from a year ago showing the virtual shrink in action (it may be an older version): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejczMs6b1Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejczMs6b1Q4