6 ms·

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

by 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...
    - daeken 12y ago
      >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. The point I'm making is that just because therapy is equally effective as a sympathetic friend (as you mentioned), that doesn't mean that the virtual therapist is equally effective as well. The research simply hasn't been done to back that up. Edit: To be more clear, nothing in this article speaks to the efficacy of the virtual therapist whatsoever. It could be completely useless, for all we know. I think you're making a lot of leaps here.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > The point I'm making is that just because therapy is equally effective as a sympathetic friend (as you mentioned), that doesn't mean that the virtual therapist is equally effective as well. I only emphasized that because the linked article suggested that it might be so. Also the history of ELIZA and more recent programs suggest that people derive substantial benefit from them. > It could be completely useless, for all we know. The same could be said about conventional talk therapy -- surely you realize that research can't exclude the Placebo Effect as the primary agent of action in therapy (and many studies say just that). > I think you're making a lot of leaps here. I've studied this problem very extensively, it's not something I take lightly: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology

by daeken 12y ago

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...
  - daeken 12y ago
    >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. The point I'm making is that just because therapy is equally effective as a sympathetic friend (as you mentioned), that doesn't mean that the virtual therapist is equally effective as well. The research simply hasn't been done to back that up. Edit: To be more clear, nothing in this article speaks to the efficacy of the virtual therapist whatsoever. It could be completely useless, for all we know. I think you're making a lot of leaps here.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > The point I'm making is that just because therapy is equally effective as a sympathetic friend (as you mentioned), that doesn't mean that the virtual therapist is equally effective as well. I only emphasized that because the linked article suggested that it might be so. Also the history of ELIZA and more recent programs suggest that people derive substantial benefit from them. > It could be completely useless, for all we know. The same could be said about conventional talk therapy -- surely you realize that research can't exclude the Placebo Effect as the primary agent of action in therapy (and many studies say just that). > I think you're making a lot of leaps here. I've studied this problem very extensively, it's not something I take lightly: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology