Re: Re: Toxic/addictive thinking patterns

[Guest guest]

Actually, the first patient is taking a bit of a leap of faith, too, although I agree the medical culture makes a stronger evidence-based background more likely. I also have read support that the therapeutic relationship valued by the humanist folks can have a positive effect on patient outcomes, an evidence-based intervention that probably works a whole lot better for those with better interpersonal skills. My impression is that therapy has a tougher job in is area because the empirical evidence is less delineated.My own thought is that what works is worth looking at and whatever position I may identify with has to work or be abandoned, no matter how cherished. Yet, I see no need to master neuroscience in order to engage in coaching or therapy. I agree that the results of such research should be monitored, but my focus is on enabling change, which is accomplished with a whole person rather than an organ.Having said all that, I do agree with the spirit of your message but I think the delivery comes awfully close to over-generalizing therapists or psychologists into uncaring charlatans. I have not read your reference study, but I have known some very inquisitive and conscientious shrinks....D

Oops, I forgot to add the link for this article as well - puts the situation

into plain-English terms - from the Nov. 15 2009 Washington Post

opinion page -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111302221.html

To quote the lead of the article:

"A young woman enters a physician's office seeking help for diabetes. She assumes

that the physician has been trained to understand, value and use the latest science

related to her disorder. Down the hall, a young man enters a clinical psychologist's

office seeking help for depression. He similarly assumes that the psychologist has

been trained to understand, value and use current research on his disorder.

"The first patient would be justified in her beliefs; the second, often, would not.

"This is the overarching conclusion of a two-year analysis that we recently published

on the views and practices of hundreds of clinical psychologists."

- R.

> >>

> >> I would even go so far as to say that some therapists don't really

> >> *like* the idea of science - certainly not evidence-based treatment -

> >

> > I think you carried your extrapolations a step too

> > far in this quote, Randy....

> >

> > D (a therapist who likes scientific method)

>

> Hi Darrell -

>

> Actually, it's not an extrapolation. I've personally met therapists

> who believe that they are the best judge of what works and what

> doesn't. Meaning they get to pick and choose.

>

> And even a quick Google finds concern in the literature about the

> difficulty in promoting evidence-based interventions, for this &

> other reasons. E.g. see Kratochwill, T. (2003), "Evidence-based

> practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school

> psychology" - here is a quick quote from that paper:

>

> "The challenges in EBI adoption go to the core of traditional

> problems surrounding the scientist-practitioner model and the hiatus

> between research and practice ... Some psychologists may be more

> influenced by clinical judgment than by research supporting EBIs

> when designing, implementing, and evaluating their own interventions

> (, 1996a, 1996b). , McMillen, and Pollio (2003) noted

> that 'evidence-based practice represents a paradigmatic break with

> authority-based and idiosyncratic practice methods that have

> historically characterized social service micro-, meso-, and

> macropractice interventions' (p. 239)."

>

> So it is a genuine issue out there in the wild.

>

> - Randy

>