The Deception of Clinical Psychology: Unscientific and Ineffective

[jackpuffin]

The philosophical implications of the very existence of clinical psychology as an institution have not yet been studied because we have been operating under the assumption that psychotherapy is effective. However, surprisingly, the body of research as a whole suggests psychotherapy is actually harmful to your health, and, statistically speaking, you’d be better off avoiding it all together. From agnostic psychologist Hans Eysenck Phd.,“There thus appears to be an inverse correlation between recovery and psychotherapy; the more psychotherapy, the smaller the recovery rate.”

Given that:
a. there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that psychotherapy is more effective than no treatment at all,
b. many studies have shown it to actually be more harmful than no treatment at all. (Notably the work of Hans Eysenck in the 50’s and 60’s),
c. the most far-reaching studies show that the type of psychotherapy doesn’t matter (based in Christian philosophy or otherwise),
d. the level of training doesn’t matter,
e. nonprofessional counselors faired better than professionals practicing psychotherapy,
f. there is debate on whether psychology is even a science (notably the APA funded study: Psychology: A Study of Science which states in part: “The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science.”,
g. psychology’s utility was found in the Church in the form of philosophy for nearly two millenia, and there is evidence to suggest it remains there,
h. the very idea of the institution of clinical psychology necessarily implies a belief system founded on the doctrine that the psychologist is specially qualified to heal the psyche,
i. the last 100 years have been a test of that doctrine/hypothesis which has given us no positive results,

By what scientific or philosophical proof can one ethically justify:
a. recommending anyone at all pursue psychotherapy as a treatment for the psyche
b. making clinical psychology one’s profession

 

[septimine]

I think it’s somewhat worse than that. If you look at the 12 step and other such programs, the psychologists want you to come and talk for the rest of your life. I don’t see that happening in most other helping professions. When you go to a doctor, the doctor tries to heal you so that you don’t need treatment anymore. If you go to physical therapy, the therapist tries to treat you in such a way that you can eventually stop therapy. A teacher teaches with the view that you eventually graduate and don’t need her anymore. I think Psychology is a worse option then doing nothing in most cases for just that reason – the goal isn’t to get you better, but to make you dependent on the therapist forever. And what makes that even worse is that a therapist will give you drugs which change how your brain works.

 

[Boulder257]

There are a good number of Catholic Psychologists and Psychiatrists that would disagree. Not to mention the inestimable number of patients who have been treated.

We now know that some people experience a chemical imbalance that requires correction. I could go into some pretty great detail regarding neurotransmitters, hormones, etc. but you seem set on just disregarding this fact all together.

We now have such a greater understanding of the human body and brain. Why try to throw us back into a time when people with depression, anxiety, addictions, etc. are told to just “suck it up?”

 

[meltzerboy]

We non-clinical psychologists (I am a cognitive psychologist, with training in social psychology as well) have no great love for clinical psychologists. However, many of the statements you make are somewhat incomplete or misleading. First of all, there are several kinds of clinical psychology, including varieties of psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, and humanistic/supportive therapies. Second, the efficacy of these kinds of clinical psychology HAVE been studied and compared, although it is difficult since one must take into account variations in time period when measuring efficacy. For example, cognitive therapies are largely short-term treatments compared to psychoanalytic and neo-Freudian therapies. It has been found, however, that pharmacotherapy works better when combined with cognitive therapy, which teaches clients social skills. Third, research has shown that SOME people may be therapy-allergic (perhaps up to one-third of patients) or may not be in the right kind of treatment or with the right therapist. Still, about one-third of patients/clients have been found to improve by means of therapy and another third remain more or less the same. The role of so-called non-specific factors in therapy do play a significant role. These factors include the therapist’s empathy for their patients, the trust they instill, and their understanding of the cultural (including religious) values of their patients. Fourth, some clinical psychologists are also clinical researchers, who conduct empirical research and are well trained in scientific methodology. The traditional expertise of clinical psychologists since World War I has been the formulation and application of psychological tests. Fifth, psychotherapists sometimes work in conjunction with psychiatrists who prescribe medication. (Currently, clinical psychologists in New Mexico and Louisiana have the opportunity to complete a psychopharmacological program and obtain certification giving them prescription privileges.) A historical note: the battle lines between clinical psychology and religion were present at the inception of clinical psychology, which was touted as the “new religion.” Most clinicians were of Jewish or Protestant origins and many came from religious families (Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, for example); they were preachers’ sons who broke away from their religious roots. Very few Catholics became clinical psychologists in the early days. That has changed dramatically over time, however.

 

[Boulder257]

There are a good number of Catholic Psychologists and Psychiatrists that would disagree. Not to mention the inestimable number of patients who have been treated.

We now know that some people experience a chemical imbalance that requires correction. I could go into some pretty great detail regarding neurotransmitters, hormones, etc. but you seem set on just disregarding this fact all together.

We now have such a greater understanding of the human body and brain. Why try to throw us back into a time when people with depression, anxiety, addictions, etc. are told to just “suck it up?”

I have to agree with Meltzer in that you make many assumptions that are just not accurate.

 

[Danuska]

I know some people who have been helped by psychologists. Same goes for the 12 step programs.

 

[BobCatholic]

Someone should ask Dr. Ray Guarendi to post in this thread, I’m sure he’d have a great answer.

 

[lampstand]

True. I have seen a psychiatrist for a few years, and she is helpful to me.

As with any large group, there will be some good and some bad. I don’t think we can say there have never been any positive results from any psychologist. That sounds like sloganeering from a Scientologist.

Every patient is different, and they have different needs. Some need medicine, others benefit from discussion therapy, and so on. I’m not a doctor, so I can’t say that there is no benefit to any patient.

 

[Qoeleth]

As someone who has studied philosophy, theology, counselling and psychology- I agree. Now, when I ‘counsel’ someone, I really give them spiritual direction, moral guidance, or talk philosophy with them.

A “morally neutral” psychotherapy, or one which is devoid of metaphysical, axiological or anthropological assumption is impossible.

Most phsychotherapists are ‘business people’- they wish to have customers. I think there is some value in psychology- but, no, it isn’t a science.

Have you seen the movie about Freud and Nietzsche- where Nietzsche actually ends up challenging and treating Freud?

 

[JDaniel]

I think it’s somewhat worse than that. If you look at the 12 step and other such programs, the psychologists want you to come and talk for the rest of your life. I don’t see that happening in most other helping professions. When you go to a doctor, the doctor tries to heal you so that you don’t need treatment anymore. If you go to physical therapy, the therapist tries to treat you in such a way that you can eventually stop therapy. A teacher teaches with the view that you eventually graduate and don’t need her anymore. I think Psychology is a worse option then doing nothing in most cases for just that reason – the goal isn’t to get you better, but to make you dependent on the therapist forever. And what makes that even worse is that a therapist will give you drugs which change how your brain works.

Septimine:

That’s all well and good, but you seem to have forgotten about the efficacies of electric shock treatments. The proof is in the fact that it is still being used - without abandon! God is not alone in His ability to produce vegetables.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

As someone who has studied philosophy, theology, counselling and psychology- I agree. Now, when I ‘counsel’ someone, I really give them spiritual direction, moral guidance, or talk philosophy with them.

A “morally neutral” psychotherapy, or one which is devoid of metaphysical, axiological or anthropological assumption is impossible.

Most phsychotherapists are ‘business people’- they wish to have customers. I think there is some value in psychology- but, no, it isn’t a science.

Have you seen the movie about Freud and Nietzsche- where Nietzsche actually ends up challenging and treating Freud?

Now that’s funny!

God bless,
jd

 

[Faith1960]

I think it’s somewhat worse than that. If you look at the 12 step and other such programs, the psychologists want you to come and talk for the rest of your life. I don’t see that happening in most other helping professions. When you go to a doctor, the doctor tries to heal you so that you don’t need treatment anymore. If you go to physical therapy, the therapist tries to treat you in such a way that you can eventually stop therapy. A teacher teaches with the view that you eventually graduate and don’t need her anymore. I think Psychology is a worse option then doing nothing in most cases for just that reason – the goal isn’t to get you better, but to make you dependent on the therapist forever. And what makes that even worse is that a therapist will give you drugs which change how your brain works.

Psychologists can not prescribe medication.