What the difference between the new practices "psychological" or holistic and eclectic witchcraft practices, shamanic and / or mystical? Little or nothing. The placebo effect is on the agenda and the aim is to relieve the pain as soon as possible (something that has nothing wrong with it except that it becomes an endless cycle). As Psychiatry Mental Health aims to produce prescribing recipes (the heads of Mental Health are psychiatrists. Go folly. I recommend this excellent article on Mental Health and Psychiatry HERE), as I said, like psychiatry, the "new therapies" that revolve around Current mood to do everything at once and faster is better. Thus, mixed without a clear order, "techniques" from different sources: mental, spiritual, energy, sensory, oriental, religious, and some psychology there, and with it, so elegant, sold smoke.
happens that for the proclaimers of these trends would not be a demerit or less a failure of action. Some of this is noted in an exchange of words on one side remained an advocate of these new "therapies" and on the other, a current critic of pseudoscience. Look at the question that makes the critical defense and see and what kind of arguments put forward the "new therapists" (this is a quote from the whole conversation):
Ombudsman for new therapies : Where do you draw that for something to be effective or approved must have a theory to support it?
critical Answer: From the methodology and philosophy of science. I know that something can be effective but not have an explanation for it. A good example is the kitchen. Prepare a delicious meal and almost always works, works out, has the same taste. But do not control the variables. One day we get "bad" and do not know why. Science is not treated as a cooking method. It is preferable and strongly recommended that has a solid theoretical framework and hypotheses tested (and testable). I do not see how could advance our knowledge through the centuries. NLP does not meet any of the two conditions: no theory and experiment does not support its effectiveness. http://www.pnlnet.com/chasq/a/114
We see that the question of counsel summarized their whole outlook. On the other hand, the critic's response notes that we also want to note here: to encourage critical and scientific attitude. In some lines that follow in this conversation the defense says something else that binds to the above he also said: "Whatever the theoretical basis but it works." Heavenly! This argument is similar to one that usually answers all pseudoscientific and is now used by the "new therapies" to get rid of responsibility: "It is pertinent to ask about their truth or falsity, but on its usefulness." Beautiful!
can say, at this level that the functionality is not established by the immediacy but for efficiency and fail is precisely where the "new trends." They are not effective, just seem to be. The person would have to attend regularly to get a new dose of relieving this cycle indefinitely and that becomes endless, only makes her more dependent every day but the feeling has freer.
This is because the "new therapies" suffer from a psycho-educational strategy that distance every day to achieve the therapist of the client. And if ever achieved was because in the course of the intervention used behavioral procedures marked line. This is no mystery. On the other hand, and what you see in the fees they receive their proclamations, it appears that the raw profit. The costs of workshops and training courses for professionals and therapy sessions for customers with prices that do not correspond to what provided. This plus the fact that such activities are carried out in an environment that gives the impression that you were teaching the "secret of life" worthy of a select few. Mental health can not and should not be mysteries because it is a work of public knowledge. Profit is desirable and justified but not trying to con trying to sell the "revolutionary cure" for all the ills of the mind.
Finally, from our perspective, we believe a reliable way to support fully ascertained, gives us the technology derives from the analysis of behavior (behavior therapy, Behavior Modification and Behavior Analysis Applied) to work with parsimony and long term. In the next post I will try to extend these considerations.
happens that for the proclaimers of these trends would not be a demerit or less a failure of action. Some of this is noted in an exchange of words on one side remained an advocate of these new "therapies" and on the other, a current critic of pseudoscience. Look at the question that makes the critical defense and see and what kind of arguments put forward the "new therapists" (this is a quote from the whole conversation):
Ombudsman for new therapies : Where do you draw that for something to be effective or approved must have a theory to support it?
critical Answer: From the methodology and philosophy of science. I know that something can be effective but not have an explanation for it. A good example is the kitchen. Prepare a delicious meal and almost always works, works out, has the same taste. But do not control the variables. One day we get "bad" and do not know why. Science is not treated as a cooking method. It is preferable and strongly recommended that has a solid theoretical framework and hypotheses tested (and testable). I do not see how could advance our knowledge through the centuries. NLP does not meet any of the two conditions: no theory and experiment does not support its effectiveness. http://www.pnlnet.com/chasq/a/114
We see that the question of counsel summarized their whole outlook. On the other hand, the critic's response notes that we also want to note here: to encourage critical and scientific attitude. In some lines that follow in this conversation the defense says something else that binds to the above he also said: "Whatever the theoretical basis but it works." Heavenly! This argument is similar to one that usually answers all pseudoscientific and is now used by the "new therapies" to get rid of responsibility: "It is pertinent to ask about their truth or falsity, but on its usefulness." Beautiful!
can say, at this level that the functionality is not established by the immediacy but for efficiency and fail is precisely where the "new trends." They are not effective, just seem to be. The person would have to attend regularly to get a new dose of relieving this cycle indefinitely and that becomes endless, only makes her more dependent every day but the feeling has freer.
This is because the "new therapies" suffer from a psycho-educational strategy that distance every day to achieve the therapist of the client. And if ever achieved was because in the course of the intervention used behavioral procedures marked line. This is no mystery. On the other hand, and what you see in the fees they receive their proclamations, it appears that the raw profit. The costs of workshops and training courses for professionals and therapy sessions for customers with prices that do not correspond to what provided. This plus the fact that such activities are carried out in an environment that gives the impression that you were teaching the "secret of life" worthy of a select few. Mental health can not and should not be mysteries because it is a work of public knowledge. Profit is desirable and justified but not trying to con trying to sell the "revolutionary cure" for all the ills of the mind.
Finally, from our perspective, we believe a reliable way to support fully ascertained, gives us the technology derives from the analysis of behavior (behavior therapy, Behavior Modification and Behavior Analysis Applied) to work with parsimony and long term. In the next post I will try to extend these considerations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment