3 ms·

> 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 pr

by 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.

by lutusp 12y ago

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.