6 ms·

>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

by 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".
    - daeken 12y ago
      I fail to see how this is logically sound. Let's look at this by way of analogy: I create a new pain reliever; let's call it SuperTylenol. Would it be logically sound for me to state that if it is sometimes more effective than regular Tylenol, then people have the ability to relieve their pain without it? You may be able to say that it suggests such results, but it'd be incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it proves such a thing. Again, the science doesn't support the weight of your statements, as far as I can tell.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > You may be able to say that it suggests such results, but it'd be incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it proves such a thing. I laid it out for you explicitly -- IF, THEN. Stop excising a phrase from a full context. IF the antecedent, THEN the consequent. > Again, the science doesn't support the weight of your statements, as far as I can tell. "The science"? What science is that? We're discussing a field so bereft of science that the chair of the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiat...
        12y ago

by daeken 12y ago

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".
  - daeken 12y ago
    I fail to see how this is logically sound. Let's look at this by way of analogy: I create a new pain reliever; let's call it SuperTylenol. Would it be logically sound for me to state that if it is sometimes more effective than regular Tylenol, then people have the ability to relieve their pain without it? You may be able to say that it suggests such results, but it'd be incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it proves such a thing. Again, the science doesn't support the weight of your statements, as far as I can tell.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > You may be able to say that it suggests such results, but it'd be incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it proves such a thing. I laid it out for you explicitly -- IF, THEN. Stop excising a phrase from a full context. IF the antecedent, THEN the consequent. > Again, the science doesn't support the weight of your statements, as far as I can tell. "The science"? What science is that? We're discussing a field so bereft of science that the chair of the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiat...
      - 12y ago