Another great article from Paul Lutus.
Pretty annoying, to say the least, that the taxpayer is funding Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in the NHS.
Originally Posted by Jules
Another great article from Paul Lutus.
Pretty annoying, to say the least, that the taxpayer is funding Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in the NHS.
Only read the first two paragraphs and it's clear to me that the writer doesn't know the difference between psychology and psychotherapy. Do I need to read further?
Whoops. Should have read further... and more thoroughly. That said I'm not particularly convinced that this statement
is reasonable when this
- In this article, the terms "psychology" and "human psychology" are a convenient shorthand to refer to clinical and experimental psychology, and psychiatry — all the fields and subfields that deal with subjective mental states, diagnoses and treatments.
is the dictionary definition. I have doubts on the validity of the statements he makes when it appears that hepsychology [saɪˈkɒlədʒɪ]
n pl -gies 1. (Psychology) the scientific study of all forms of human and animal behaviour, sometimes concerned with the methods through which behaviour can be modified See also analytical psychology, clinical psychology, comparative psychology, educational psychology, experimental psychology
2. (Psychology) Informal the mental make-up or structure of an individual that causes him or her to think or act in the way he or she does psychologist n
doesn't have any particular relevant knowledge of the subject.Paul LutusBornMay 16, 1945 (1945-05-16) (age 65)Occupationcomputer programmer
Paul Lutus (born May 16, 1945) is a computer programmer and former NASA designer. Before becoming a software author, Lutus designed electronics for the NASA Space Shuttle[1] and created a mathematical model of the solar system that was used by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the Viking Mars mission. After working for NASA, in 1976 Lutus moved to a remote location in rural Oregon and started living in a cottage in complete isolation. There, he started writing computer programs on his first personal computer, an Apple II. In the 80's, he would eventually program Apple Writer, an international best-seller for the Apple II [2], and the GraFORTH[3] and TransFORTH II[4] programming environments.
In 1983, Lutus received Reed College's Vollum award for contributions to science and technology, and was named Scientist of the Year by the Oregon Academy of Science in 1986.[5][6]
Between 1988 and 1991 Lutus sailed solo around the world in a 31-foot sailboat. His book about the sail, Confessions of a Long-Distance Sailor is free on his website.[7]
One of Lutus's latest software projects is Arachnophilia, a Java Web development workshop available free on his website.[8] The program is released under Lutus's own version of the Careware license.
The real problem here is that nothing new is being written. The deficits of clinical and popular psychology have been rehearsed on UKS a number of times. DrB has pointed out that neuropsychology is where the action is.
The analogy between astrology and astronomy is eye catching, so might be good for public dissemination of the concepts being advanced.
However, it is not accurate. The concept behind psychology is that human behaviour and emotional status is a product of life experiences not just physiology and pathology. So while advances in neuorpathology will certainly move some currently fuzzy diagnoses into the realms of real medicine, much of human suffering will remain unexplained. One can throw ones' hands up in horror and say that in the absence of definable pathology, no diagnosis or treatment is possible. But actually the first step in any field of medicine is description. Unless one can accurately and easily define groups of symptoms that identify individuals suffering from a given condition that is likely to have related underlying causes, one cannot even begin the process of research. Once this has been achieved, it is blindingly obvious retrospectively that these symptoms complexes should have been grouped together - managing to do this before the disease or underlying causes have been identified requires considerable lateral thinking.
Since it is evident to anyone that life experiences do play a role in emotional status (grief, ectasy) it seems logical to search for either extreme life experiences or abnormal reactions to average experiences to explain some pyschopathology. The problem at the moment is that we cannot accurately define groups of psychological conditions likely to have single causes, and we have no robust scientific methodology to evaluate how life experiences could lead to disordered thinking/emotional states (though observations can be made).
Despite Panama's self correction the article does muddle the two (psychology and psychotherapy). And you can't!
Apart from that the article seems to push a point of view and be high on opinion and low on evidence. Granted, I've skimmed it swiftly as I'm pushed for time....
I'd be very interested if anyone can provide evidence of efficacy of CBT and/or any other 'talking therapies'?
I'm sure I've read much stating that CBT has proved useful for some behavioral difficulties and in cases of mild depression.
I'd like to know more if anyone can help?
Thanks for the input guys. I'd like to start a dialogue with the author on his article, and will raise some of the points you mention. Hopefully he'll publish it on the feedback page.
Right now I don't have a lot of time, but Smudge, there is no evidence that any "talking therapy" has more benefit than any other, or simply talking with a friend (although I don't think CBT falls into the category of a "talking" therapy). See the articles cited at the foot of the page.
For the completely uninitiated, could you give a brief differentiation?
I've no problem with NHS funded CBT as there is some evidence, apparently, that it can work at least as well, if not better, as other psychotherapies in treating certain conditions.
Pretty annoying, to say the least, that the taxpayer is funding Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in the NHS.
There are criticisms of the treatment and the amount of NHS funding it gets but what are the alternatives?
For the completely uninitiated, could you give a brief differentiation?For psychology see the definition above.
- S: (n) psychotherapy, psychotherapeutics, mental hygiene (the branch of psychiatry concerned with psychological methods)
- S: (n) psychotherapy (the treatment of mental or emotional problems by psychological means)
My objection is to Lutus' re-definition, in the quote above, of psychology to restrict it to the therapeutic. As smudge said...You can't!
It must be me, sorry ... I still don't see (much of) a difference.
I had always thought that the work of Psychotherapists was informed by that of Psychologists, so that psychotherapy applied the results of research and theories of the more academic subject of Psychology (much in the way that Civil engineering is applied physics), but it seems that isn't the case at all, simply because there is no consistent body of psychological theory which explains behaviour.
Pushed for time so will have to be brief, soz!For the completely uninitiated, could you give a brief differentiation?
Psychology is the study of the mind, behaviour and mental processes. Within this are psychiatrists and psychotherapists.
Psychotherapy and counselling are umbrella terms for a range of talking therapies. Within that range are widely differing approaches and different levels of training.
Psychiatrists are medically trained and able to prescribe medication.
Psychotherapists and counsellors are not. Though psychiatrists may use counselling.
So, a range of people may be considered psychotherapists or counsellors. Some highly qualified. Others not. I gather in the past little regulation was the norm (hence problems like repressed memory controversy). More recently this is being tightened.
Still, the wide range of approaches makes it hard to lump all in together either a positive or negative way.
Hope that helps...
It certainly does, thankyou, and thanks to Panama and Jules too.
It's an appallingly bad article IMO.
There's just so much wrong with it that it would take all day to address the faults.
It is completely biased, unbalanced, full of inaccurate assumptions, lacking clarity of definitions (as already pointed out he shows no ability to distinguish between psychiatry, psychotherapy and psychology), contains cherry-picked examples (why doesn't he analyse schizophrenia for example) and almost everything he claims is wrong.
e.g. His argument for why psychology produces fewer negative results is:
Argument by assertion and assumption! And complete bullshit.The reasons for this are well-established — because scientific standards are so weak in psychology, researchers will simply not publish studies that don't live up to expectations, or as the results start coming in, they will change what they claim to be studying, and publish something else instead — anything to get a positive result.
Is he assuming that every study done by psychologists is hypothesis testing through experiment? More than likely. Perhaps the figures he provides match his biased argument because he leaves out their context.
What about studies in social psychology? A researcher may be investigating issues such as "what are people's current attitudes to immigration?", "why do women choose bottle feeding or breast feeding?" or "what are people's attitudes towards religion in politics?"
Each of these studies will give different results in different populations at different times, but none of them will produce 'negative results'; just different answers. This needs to be considered when evaluating the rate of publishing negative outcomes within psychology when compared to other sciences.
Perhaps he's unaware that there are physical differences in the brains of schizophrenics and the 'normal' population and that these differences are apparent from a young age - long before schizophrenia develops (although social factors also contribute). It shows that there is a physiological component to schizophrenia. i.e. it's not just a 'myth'. IIRC, similar findings have now been found for those on the autism spectrum.
Yes it would be better if there were a greater scientific or evidence-based understanding of mental illnesses and their treatments. No one would argue against that (on here at least), but you can't make an argument for that by providing such ill-informed and inaccurate reasons in support of it.
.
IMO this assessment is a little OTT, to put it mildly. I also believe you've missed the point of the article:
Regarding the point about negative outcomes, the theory of the "Hierarchy of the Sciences" is admittedly controversial, but it's worth reading the article in PLoS One.Mental illness (old definition): An abnormal, debilitating condition originating solely in the mind, reliably diagnosable using psychological methods, and successfully treatable using psychological techniques.Most modern definitions of "mental illness" don't agree with the above traditional one — many now include the possibility that some mental illnesses have causes and remedies apart from psychological ones, but to date the implications of that fact haven't significantly changed clinical practice.
In this article I will show that, until now, psychology has operated under an assumption for which there was and is little evidence, and that we are in the midst of a complete change in the understanding of mental illness. I will show that the end result of the present revolution will be the abandonment of psychology and its replacement with a new branch of medicine with objective diagnoses and treatments.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks