g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (03/14/86)
In article <> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >> >Clinical and Applied Psychology. >> >> I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many >> people are hurt as are helped by therapy. > >I don't what study you're talking about, but I have heard that most (70% or >more) of people who have attended therapy/councilling found it beneficial. >Therapy is much maligned by people who have no personal experience with it >-- in fact, by otherwise rational and intelligent people. > >Perhaps you should keep an open mind about topics in which you are less >qualified than others to pass judgment -- even personal judgment. I've been >involved in therapy and found it to be very helpful. >-- For what it is worth there are studies which purport to show that the spontaneous remission rate for disturbences severe enough that therapy is considered appropriate is on the order of 65% -- i.e. that 'no treatment' is as effective as therapy. A reference is 'The Case Against Psychoanalysis', which is about 20 years old. I have a copy in my vast and disorderly library which I can't find immediately. If there is interest I will try to dig it up and post more details. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/17/86)
> For what it is worth there are studies which purport to show > that the spontaneous remission rate for disturbences severe > enough that therapy is considered appropriate is on the order > of 65% -- i.e. that 'no treatment' is as effective as therapy. > A reference is 'The Case Against Psychoanalysis', which is > about 20 years old. I have a copy in my vast and disorderly > library which I can't find immediately. If there is interest > I will try to dig it up and post more details. If you are referring to Andrew Salter's book of the same title, I recall it as a terrible, amateurish book by a behaviorist with a huge axe to grind against psychoanalysis, but it's been years since I looked at it. Hans Eysenck's polemics against psychoanalysis belong in the same trash bin. A much more serious effort is *The Scientific Credibility of Freud's Theories and Therapy* edited by Seymour Fisher of female orgasmic fame. Of course, these only deal with analysis, not with therapy in general. What I have read is that studies consistently show that about 2/3 of patients in therapy experience significant improvement, and about 5-10% get worse. The methodology of this type of study obviously presents severe difficulties. If you want the straight dope on this subject as with any other, you will have to go to the authoritative literature rather than relying on the net for your info, misinfo, or disinfo as the case may be. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/18/86)
> In article <> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: > >> >Clinical and Applied Psychology. > >> > >> I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many > >> people are hurt as are helped by therapy. > > > >I don't what study you're talking about, but I have heard that most (70% or > >more) of people who have attended therapy/councilling found it beneficial. > >Therapy is much maligned by people who have no personal experience with it > >-- in fact, by otherwise rational and intelligent people. > > > >Perhaps you should keep an open mind about topics in which you are less > >qualified than others to pass judgment -- even personal judgment. I've been > >involved in therapy and found it to be very helpful. > >-- > For what it is worth there are studies which purport to show > that the spontaneous remission rate for disturbences severe > enough that therapy is considered appropriate is on the order > of 65% -- i.e. that 'no treatment' is as effective as therapy. > A reference is 'The Case Against Psychoanalysis', which is > about 20 years old. I have a copy in my vast and disorderly > library which I can't find immediately. If there is interest > I will try to dig it up and post more details. > > Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. Ditto. I've read that the spontaneous cure rate for schizophrenia is 33%. The psychoanalytic cure rate is 35%. Big improvement.
jlg@lanl.UUCP (03/19/86)
In article <421@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >... and I can easily quote two books in favor of >therapy to each one against. These books, by Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, >Erik Erikson, and a dozen other highly intelligent ( as can be judged by >other than their psychotherapy works) make what seems to many of us to be >a clear case for the existence of diagnosable mental disorders AND METHODS >OF TREATMENT. BTW, treatment often includes drug ,e.g. antidepressant >therapy. There are many people (including many in the psychological community) that don't hold Freud or any of his followers in much esteem. In fact, MOST psychologists now seem to feel that MOST of Freud's ideas were pure hogwash. This is not to say that the field of psychology doesn't owe anything to Freud: without him, it would have taken MUCH longer for psychology to gain respectability in the general population. As far as the effectiveness of treatment is concerned, it really IS the case that treatment only helps if the patient thinks it will help. In this respect, it differs very little from other placebo treatments. There ARE disorders which benefit greatly from therapy (phobias for example, where the treatment is a form of behavior modification). The are other disorders which never benefitted from therapy (schizophrenia for example, no real headway was made until it was discovered to be an imbalance in brain chemistry - even though psychologists pocketed fees for years before for 'treating' schizophrenic patients). Modern psychology differs greatly from the 'science' advocated by Freud. The great strides in psychology today are in the areas where it overlaps conventional medicine in finding physical causes of disorders (like schizophrenia - Freud would probably maintained that it was outside the field of psychology if it had a physical origin). The stereotypical therapy of talking with the therapist was always controversial and is still, in many cases, the most suspect part of modern psychology. J. Giles Los Alamos Note: I have no particular, in depth, knowledge of psychology. I know psychologists though, so my claim about their opinions (at least about Freud) can be fairly well documented. Note2: I have used the term 'psychologist' uniformly to mean 'any professional in the field of psychology'. I know there is a more restrictive professional use of the term (ie. 'psychologist' as opposed to 'psychiatrist').
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/21/86)
In article <421@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >[discussion of the viability of psychotherapy deleted] >If you really think that *65% spontaneous remission* occurs, go look at >the bag ladies in any city. What exactly is this sentence doing in your article? At best it is giving a circular appeal to your argument. At worst it is giving a circular appeal to your argument. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/27/86)
In article <617@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: [With regard to the performance of psychotherapy] > I've read that the spontaneous cure rate for schizophrenia is >33%. The psychoanalytic cure rate is 35%. Big improvement. It's been known for some time now that therapy is of little use in the treatment of schitzophrenia. THere are numerous other signs, including its responsiveness to drug treatment, which suggest that it represents a neurochemical problem. Even so, the conclusions that can be drawn from this are quite limited in scope. Using this to cast aspersions upon psychotherapy is an error of a type we commonly see in n.philo, an error in generalization. In this case, there is little reason to presume that all psychological disturbances are similar both in nature and in cause. C. Wingate
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/01/86)
> In article <617@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > [With regard to the performance of psychotherapy] > > > I've read that the spontaneous cure rate for schizophrenia is > >33%. The psychoanalytic cure rate is 35%. Big improvement. > > It's been known for some time now that therapy is of little use in the > treatment of schitzophrenia. THere are numerous other signs, including its > responsiveness to drug treatment, which suggest that it represents a > neurochemical problem. > > Even so, the conclusions that can be drawn from this are quite limited in > scope. Using this to cast aspersions upon psychotherapy is an error of a > type we commonly see in n.philo, an error in generalization. In this case, > there is little reason to presume that all psychological disturbances are > similar both in nature and in cause. > > C. Wingate Actually, I wasn't casting an aspersion on psychotherapy for treating all forms of disturbance and mental illness. I was following up on someone else's comments that were somewhat more negative and all encompassing than mine. I was adding data to the discussion, not necessarily taking sides. (Although I doubt the value of psychotherapy in treating psychoses like schizophrenia.)