Why do "THEY" really HATE Brad Jesness

[webmaster]

Here's why: FACTS AND VIEWS!!! (see http://bradjesness.org ) for more.

There are excellent reasons, based on existing facts and data AND related
to the LACK of facts and data (HUGE HOLES IN core, foundation data)
to believe that psychotherapy is, in large part, NOT a science. It
is often mock science (and, in that sense, is pseudoscience). A major
contrast can be made between psychotherapy and medicine, with respect
to adhering (or not adhering) to specific proven techniques.

While most medical doctors are themselves not researchers, so in that
strict sense are not scientists, they do often use procedures
start-to-finish that are directly and clearly based on research
(with no "creative" extrapolation involved). Just the opposite of this
is true with most 'psychotherapy' (which is ususally really just a
misnomer for counseling)-- to give the appearence that there is science
to uninformed consumers.

"Psychotherapists" wildly extrapolate from the results of already vague
research in doing what they '''choose''' to do. They cannot be seen to
be operating well in accord with research-based agreed-upon procedures.
In fact, so unclear is what they do, that professional psychologists
viewing real psychologists in action and viewing very briefly trained
lay counselors CANNOT TELL WHICH IS WHICH. This statement is based on
the research of Alvin Mahrer, Distinguished Psychologist Award Winner.

Secondly, the diagostic criteria clinical psychologists use do not have
any kind of decent interrater reliability (for MOST diagnoses and for
most of the diagnoses actually given to people). Plus, very little
research is done on diagnoses. The Sourcebook for the DSM-IV, the
most recent Sourcebook published by the APA, showed most diagnoses had
NO research done on their interrater reliability between the DSM-III
and the DSM-IV.

Thirdly, the most important (though vague) characteristic related to
good counseling is 'empathy'. This is something that cannot be taught
to people well, but it seems to be related to good adaptation.
Unfortunately, research, cited by Dr. Scot McNary, shows that most
practicing psychotherapists receive between five and ten times the
treatment THAT MOST CLIENTS '''WHO RECEIVE TREATMENT''' RECEIVE and
MOST OF THIS IS RECEIVED AFTER THEIR PRACTICE BEGINS. Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.psychology.psychotherapy/msg/d44dd6bb0
a7e77b0?dmode=source&hl=en

Finally, little progress is made or seems possible in the psychotherapy
field because they refuse to do basic needed, core foundation
research. The main feature of this problem is that that refuse to
compare treatment given by professional psychologists to that which
can possibly be provided by less-long-trained para-professions OR
other reasonable helpers. Very few such studies have been done (the
last in 1979 -- and that showed other reasonable helpers were just
as effective counselors for common problems as Ph.D. psychologists).

A major critique of the science of the psychotherapy field can be found
at: http://bradjesness.org .


Footnote: For a field to be a science, in the minimal sense, the
practitioners must be seen as operating in-accord with established
procedures and this must be shown with interrater reliability
(start to finish).
Psychotherapy FAILS to meet this criteria. Psychotherapists cannot
even tell when they are viewing professional "therapy" or VERY
briefly-trained lay people doing counseling. They cannot even
diagnose reliably (typically) and this is a very small part of the
treatment process.

To be a scientist you are doing research to find procedures
or better procedures and those procedures will be clear and
understandable and communicable -- and the major proof of this is
interrater reliability. Start-to-finish those operating in accord
with science can use(do)the same research-proven procedure, clearly
and reliably. Such is often the case with medical doctors and is
almost never the case with clinical psychologists.

[ThePsyko]

On 11 Nov 2005 in sci.psychology.psychotherapy, webmaster
<webmaster@bradjesness.org> made their contribution to mankind by
stating in news:Xns970B64FB5AA0Bihatespammers@213.155.197.138:

[GetNutri]

Join the millions of proponents spreading the word about Wobenzyme N (Wobenzym N) by experiencing the relief for yourself.
For more health articles kindly visit our website: http://www.getnutri.com/Wobenzym.html