7 ms·

This is hilarious. How is it that people, when confronted by the fact that an online therapy actually works, has a measurable therapeutic effect, don't ask them

by lutusp 12y ago

This is hilarious. How is it that people, when confronted by the fact that an online therapy actually works, has a measurable therapeutic effect, don't ask themselves whether their mental illness is as superficial as its treatment? To the question "Is my mental illness real?", one answer can be "If you can treat it by looking at some pictures and reading some words on a Website, then no, it's not real." Imagine an oncologist saying, "Yes, you have cancer, but I have a Website with some pictures and words, that will fix you right up." This isn't likely, because, unlike a psychological condition, cancer is a real disease. More here: http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind

pinkyand 12y ago
You didn't read the article and it shows. They compared treatment-as-usual to treatment-as-usual and the online intervention. An my guess is that treatment-as-usual does include meds.
- lutusp 12y ago
  I read the article and drew the obvious conclusion -- a mental illness that can be effectively treated with a Website is virtual, not real.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Do you believe that some "phobia" exists? That so e people have life-altering fears to irrational degrees? Do you call those phobias "virtual" illness, or are they "real" illness? Because current best treatment for phobia is a talkin therapy, which could be applied online.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > Do you believe that some "phobia" exists? Do you have the required electron micrograph? How about a cell culture? How about anything about which different, similarly equipped observers can come to a consensus? In other words, how about some science? > Because current best treatment for phobia is a talkin therapy, which could be applied online. If you were a scientist, you would realize that anecdotes aren't evidence.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        You reject phobia as a real illness? How about anorexia nervosa? Is that real or is it "virtual"?
        lutusp 12y ago
        > You reject phobia as a real illness? No, science rejects phobia as a real illness. Haven't you been keeping up with current events? The NIMH recently ruled that psychiatry (the treatment branch of psychology) is pseudoscience, and they will no longer accept research proposals based on the DSM, psychology's "bible", for the simple reason that it has no scientific content. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h And you already know this -- or you should. This means you're directing your questions to the wrong person. I didn't reject the scientific status of psychology, the NIMH did.
bsdshepherd 12y ago
The efficacy of bibliotherapy should not be readily dismissed. Words, written or spoken, images, still or moving, or sounds can create or alleviate illness in the mind. Idleness will deteriorate mind and body as surely as abuse or neglect. That having been said: "Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem be sure that you are not first, in fact, surrounded by a**holes." - William Gibson
- lutusp 12y ago
  > The efficacy of bibliotherapy should not be readily dismissed. What happened to what is popularly known as common sense? A disease that can be treated by a website is virtual, not real. To see the point, try treating any real disease by visiting a website. > Words, written or spoken, images, still or moving, or sounds can create or alleviate illness in the mind. Yes, but only when an "illness in the mind" is imaginary.
  - bsdshepherd 12y ago
    > What happened to what is popularly known as common sense? In my own experience, I did not gain "Common sense" until I did what you did - move to the middle of nowhere and gain direct experience. Until then, my understanding was gained through media. > A disease that can be treated by a website is virtual, not real. Let us begin by defining our terms. How do you define: .) dis-ease .) treated .) website .) real .) imaginary Make no mistake - I'm in assloads of pain with every keystroke but I will rip you a new one on this matter.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > I'm in assloads of pain with every keystroke but I will rip you a new one on this matter. Let me ask a common-sense question. What's my incentive to continue an exchange with someone who is obviously psychotic and probably dangerous?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
DanBC 12y ago
Your kook-like obsession with refusing to accept the possibility that mental illness exists is indistinguishabke from bigotry in this post. People who are sometimes hospitalised can be treated -safely and effectively- with some forms of talking therapies. That does not mean their illness is not real and it is fucking offensive to suggest otherwise.
- bsdshepherd 12y ago
  Terms such as 'kook', 'bigotry' and 'f-ing offensive' will not further the discussion in a positive way. Ad hominem will solve nothing. Maybe citing the following will be useful: Griefers have empirically demonstrated that websites can affect mental processes by using flashing images to trigger epileptic seizures. Music in psychological warfare and torture is well documented. The Amanda Todd death is sufficient to show that words have the power to kill.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Griefers have empirically demonstrated that websites can affect mental processes by using flashing images to trigger epileptic seizures. That's true, but the conclusion you draw has a logical defect -- an epileptic seizure is not a mental process, it's a physical one. It can be started and stopped by electrical and other kinds of stimuli. When you hear "epilepsy", think brain, not mind. When you hear psychology, think mind, not brain. > Music in psychological warfare and torture is well documented. Indeed it has, but there's no reliable science on that topic. The reason is there's no repeatable, objective way to gather evidence. > The Amanda Todd death is sufficient to show that words have the power to kill. The Amanda Todd death is sufficient to show that there's sometimes a correlation between words and death. To turn a correlation into science ... shall I go on, or do you know the rest of this old tune?
    - bsdshepherd 12y ago
      > The reason is there's no repeatable, objective way to gather evidence. Not even wrong.
DanBC 12y ago
> Imagine an oncologist saying, "Yes, you have cancer, but I have a Website with some pictures and words, that will fix you right up." This isn't likely, because, unlike a psychological condition, cancer is a real disease. Oncologists do say "you have cancer, I have a website with words and pictures on". CBT is used with cancer patients to manage their pain.

by lutusp 12y ago

pinkyand 12y ago

You didn't read the article and it shows. They compared treatment-as-usual to treatment-as-usual and the online intervention. An my guess is that treatment-as-usual does include meds.

lutusp 12y ago
I read the article and drew the obvious conclusion -- a mental illness that can be effectively treated with a Website is virtual, not real.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Do you believe that some "phobia" exists? That so e people have life-altering fears to irrational degrees? Do you call those phobias "virtual" illness, or are they "real" illness? Because current best treatment for phobia is a talkin therapy, which could be applied online.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Do you believe that some "phobia" exists? Do you have the required electron micrograph? How about a cell culture? How about anything about which different, similarly equipped observers can come to a consensus? In other words, how about some science? > Because current best treatment for phobia is a talkin therapy, which could be applied online. If you were a scientist, you would realize that anecdotes aren't evidence.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You reject phobia as a real illness? How about anorexia nervosa? Is that real or is it "virtual"?
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > You reject phobia as a real illness? No, science rejects phobia as a real illness. Haven't you been keeping up with current events? The NIMH recently ruled that psychiatry (the treatment branch of psychology) is pseudoscience, and they will no longer accept research proposals based on the DSM, psychology's "bible", for the simple reason that it has no scientific content. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h And you already know this -- or you should. This means you're directing your questions to the wrong person. I didn't reject the scientific status of psychology, the NIMH did.

bsdshepherd 12y ago

The efficacy of bibliotherapy should not be readily dismissed. Words, written or spoken, images, still or moving, or sounds can create or alleviate illness in the mind. Idleness will deteriorate mind and body as surely as abuse or neglect. That having been said: "Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem be sure that you are not first, in fact, surrounded by a**holes." - William Gibson

lutusp 12y ago
> The efficacy of bibliotherapy should not be readily dismissed. What happened to what is popularly known as common sense? A disease that can be treated by a website is virtual, not real. To see the point, try treating any real disease by visiting a website. > Words, written or spoken, images, still or moving, or sounds can create or alleviate illness in the mind. Yes, but only when an "illness in the mind" is imaginary.
- bsdshepherd 12y ago
  > What happened to what is popularly known as common sense? In my own experience, I did not gain "Common sense" until I did what you did - move to the middle of nowhere and gain direct experience. Until then, my understanding was gained through media. > A disease that can be treated by a website is virtual, not real. Let us begin by defining our terms. How do you define: .) dis-ease .) treated .) website .) real .) imaginary Make no mistake - I'm in assloads of pain with every keystroke but I will rip you a new one on this matter.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > I'm in assloads of pain with every keystroke but I will rip you a new one on this matter. Let me ask a common-sense question. What's my incentive to continue an exchange with someone who is obviously psychotic and probably dangerous?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

DanBC 12y ago

Your kook-like obsession with refusing to accept the possibility that mental illness exists is indistinguishabke from bigotry in this post. People who are sometimes hospitalised can be treated -safely and effectively- with some forms of talking therapies. That does not mean their illness is not real and it is fucking offensive to suggest otherwise.

bsdshepherd 12y ago
Terms such as 'kook', 'bigotry' and 'f-ing offensive' will not further the discussion in a positive way. Ad hominem will solve nothing. Maybe citing the following will be useful: Griefers have empirically demonstrated that websites can affect mental processes by using flashing images to trigger epileptic seizures. Music in psychological warfare and torture is well documented. The Amanda Todd death is sufficient to show that words have the power to kill.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Griefers have empirically demonstrated that websites can affect mental processes by using flashing images to trigger epileptic seizures. That's true, but the conclusion you draw has a logical defect -- an epileptic seizure is not a mental process, it's a physical one. It can be started and stopped by electrical and other kinds of stimuli. When you hear "epilepsy", think brain, not mind. When you hear psychology, think mind, not brain. > Music in psychological warfare and torture is well documented. Indeed it has, but there's no reliable science on that topic. The reason is there's no repeatable, objective way to gather evidence. > The Amanda Todd death is sufficient to show that words have the power to kill. The Amanda Todd death is sufficient to show that there's sometimes a correlation between words and death. To turn a correlation into science ... shall I go on, or do you know the rest of this old tune?
  - bsdshepherd 12y ago
    > The reason is there's no repeatable, objective way to gather evidence. Not even wrong.

DanBC 12y ago

> Imagine an oncologist saying, "Yes, you have cancer, but I have a Website with some pictures and words, that will fix you right up." This isn't likely, because, unlike a psychological condition, cancer is a real disease. Oncologists do say "you have cancer, I have a website with words and pictures on". CBT is used with cancer patients to manage their pain.