I bet it breaks your heart to "have to correct me." And don't talk to me about manners. You have been nothing but appalling for a week, and I don't know why. I've been nicer to you than you deserve. And some of the other objects of your self-appointed professional expertise and arrogance has been positively saintly.
Also you've been dumb, and I know you aren't dumb, so I wonder what has got into you. If I've been annoyed it's because you've been an self-righteous condescending jerk shooting off errors about things` where I know you know better.
You really are going to send me on a search for those studies, ok, guy, you'll get what you normally get what you assert a negative, egg on your face. When I pull out the studies we` can debate how good they are, but they're there. Of course there are studies that show that psychotherapy in inefficacious, to be cited fairly shortly. Really I should make you do a lit survey to remind you that in a matter like this the results are never one-sided. Ever. Unless you're a neoclassical economist and you can just assume the truths you want to discover.
You will note that I labeled my anecdotal experience as anecdotal, so you don't need to point out me that it was anecdotal because I already did that, and, moreover, my anecdotal experience is, as I clearly stated, mixed, some good, some bad.
--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Miles Jackson wrote:
> >
> > I hesitate to say anything, given andie's previous
> ill-mannered post,
> > but I have to correct him. His experience is
> anecdotal; there are no
> > double-blind studies that support his claim.
> Overall, experimental
> > studies have demonstrated that outcomes are better
> for clients who
> > recieve psychotherapy than for clients who receive
> a "placebo talking"
> > treatment. I know that andie's had bad personal
> experiences with
> > psychotherapists, but the existing scientific data
> do not support his
> > argument.
>
> All the empirical data can do in this area is
> establish what one could
> know in advance: that there are many good
> therapists, many bad ones, and
> many who are good with the 'right' patient but not
> good with the 'wrong'
> patient, and that the structure of medical care
> under u.s. capitalism
> gives us no way whatsoever to do anything about this
> except, in
> individual cases, hope that the roulette wheel (or
> pin in the yellow
> pages) spits out the right therapist for the
> particular patient.
>
> Also, mental illness is so fucking complicated, and
> there is still so
> much not known about it, that carping like either
> Carl's or Andie's at
> therapists is bound to be tautologically true in
> some cases, wholly
> false in others, and simply irrelevant to anything
> on the whole. Most
> mentally ill patients (certainly over half of them,
> including many
> borderline or schizophrenic patients, would get
> along fairly decently if
> they had a decent income (decent place to live; no
> hassle about the
> rent; no hassle about moving about; etc. etc. Social
> conditions almost
> always trump individual cases.
>
> At least half of the people in the local depressive
> support group would
> be able to handle their problems even without their
> condition improving
> if they were freed from outside hassle -- economic
> and social. It's
> amazing how much help a seriously depressed person
> can get just by
> finally getting a reasonably secure job.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/