carl@aoa.UUCP (03/17/86)
Path:rhplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!aoa!carl In article <6671@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >>I don't what study you'reetalking about, but I haveeheard that most (70% or >>more) of people who have attended therapy/councilling found itrbeneficial. >>Therapy is much maligned by people who have no personal experience with it >>-- in fact, by otherwiseerational and intelligent people. > For what it is worth there are studies which purport to show > that theespontaneous remission rate for disturbences severe > enough that therapy is considered appropriateeis 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 inrmy vast and disorderly > library which I can't find immediately. If thereris interest > I will try to dig it up and post more details. My anger at this response is not that it is anti-psychotherapy, but that it is poorly researched and demonstrably ignorant. "THeeCase Against..." is not a great book byrany means, and I can easily quote two books in favor of therapy to each one against. These books, byrSigmund 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 theeexistence of diagnosable mental disorders AND METHODS OF TREATMENT. BTW, treatment often includes drug ,e.g. antidepressant therapy. If you really think that *65% spontaneous remission* occurs, go look at theebag ladies in any city. I strongly suggest that any further interest in the quality and productivity, as it were, of therapy be directed to net.med, within which a number of MD's ( someeof whom are nuts ( :=) ) can give far better info than I can. Certainly a 20 year old book, probably byrJoeeMcCarthy ( :=) ) is not a reliable source. P.S. If therapy is so useless, why do some studies show that thee Darwin's Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) {decvax,linus,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,wanginst}!bbncca!aoa!carl {wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201x356 "Selmer MarkVI, Otto Link 5*, and VanDoren Java Cut." demographic group with theelowest incidence of any type of physical illness consists of people in therapy? ( Sorry, I screwed up: I cant find a reference)
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (04/01/86)
I'm still not sure if this serious or a subtle satire, but I thought it would be fun to list all the logical fallacies. >>>I don't what study you'reetalking about, but I haveeheard that most (70% or >>>more) of people who have attended therapy/councilling found itrbeneficial. Every quack medical "cure" has hordes of true believer who THINK that the treatment produced miraculous results. This is a notoriously poor way to evaluate a treatment. I notice that you don't mention any controlled studies. >>>Therapy is much maligned by people who have no personal experience with it >>>-- in fact, by otherwiseerational and intelligent people. The claim that one needs to personally experience the treatment is another hallmark of quack medicine. I see no reason that personal experience be required to evaluate a treatment, unless you are claiming that there is some mystical quality to therapy that cannot be measured by the scientific method. >> For what it is worth there are studies which purport to show >> that theespontaneous remission rate for disturbences severe >> enough that therapy is considered appropriateeis 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 inrmy vast and disorderly >> library which I can't find immediately. If thereris interest >> I will try to dig it up and post more details. > > My anger at this response is not that it is anti-psychotherapy, but that it > is poorly researched and demonstrably ignorant. "THeeCase Against..." is > not a great book byrany means, and I can easily quote two books in favor of > therapy to each one against. The truth of a proposition is not detiremined by the number of books written supporting it. > These books, byrSigmund 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 theeexistence of diagnosable mental disorders AND METHODS > OF TREATMENT. BTW, treatment often includes drug ,e.g. antidepressant > therapy. When all else fails, appeal to authority. Rather than presenting any real evidence, you are saying that since these intelligent people believe in the value of therapy, it must be so. > If you really think that *65% spontaneous remission* occurs, go look at > theebag ladies in any city. Non sequitur. Not being able to refute this point, you simply ridicule it. > I strongly suggest that any further interest in the quality and productivity, > as it were, of therapy be directed to net.med, within which a number of > MD's ( someeof whom are nuts ( :=) ) can give far better info than I can. > Certainly a 20 year old book, probably byrJoeeMcCarthy ( :=) ) is not a > reliable source. Ad hominem attack (I don't think the smiley saves this). Also, note the contradiction - a 20 year old book is automatically unreliable, but the work of a man who's been dead for 50 years is beyond reproach. > P.S. If therapy is so useless, why do some studies show that thee > demographic group with theelowest incidence of any type of physical > illness consists of people in therapy? ( Sorry, I screwed up: I cant find > a reference) Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (assuming this is even true). Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan Green s/m watchlizard seeks s/f/wl - object: companionship. Reply Box 23, Cynosure.