3 ms·

> 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 rele

by 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
  - daeken 12y ago
    I'm unsure whether we're talking past each other or if my point simply isn't coming across. My issue with your comments has nothing at all to do with your issues with therapy, most of which I agree with you on. The issue I have is that you're making assumptions based on this research that the research doesn't back up. From your original comment: > It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy. This is simply not supported. Full stop. It's especially not supported by research that has nothing to do with the efficacy of virtual therapy.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > From your original comment: >> It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy. > This is simply not supported. Certainly not, when taken out of context as you have done. Here's the original context, with the parts you deleted: >> 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. Now read carefully: IF "A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing", the remark to which I directly replied, THEN "It proves that people are competent to treat themselves".

by lutusp 12y ago

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
- daeken 12y ago
  I'm unsure whether we're talking past each other or if my point simply isn't coming across. My issue with your comments has nothing at all to do with your issues with therapy, most of which I agree with you on. The issue I have is that you're making assumptions based on this research that the research doesn't back up. From your original comment: > It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy. This is simply not supported. Full stop. It's especially not supported by research that has nothing to do with the efficacy of virtual therapy.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > From your original comment: >> It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy. > This is simply not supported. Certainly not, when taken out of context as you have done. Here's the original context, with the parts you deleted: >> 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. Now read carefully: IF "A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing", the remark to which I directly replied, THEN "It proves that people are competent to treat themselves".