Ideas for the direction of the psychology forum

snorlax

it's very hard to draw the line between a discussion and a diagnosis and i am not a doctor so it probably wouldn't be in the best position to judge it, although i have taken both subjects on i don't want to open boards or myself to liabilties.

also we don't really want everyone diagnosing everyone else on a public forum for obvious reasons.

nesf

I most definitely agree with you.

I was more thinking of a more general discussion of what problems are usually encountered in general (lower attendance, not always able to do work etc) and how to combat them and such. Rather than an illness specific discussion.

snorlax

i still think it's a difficult call, what exactly do you have in mind/ i can't say im too comfortable with it. perphaps a psychiatry forum or medicine one may be more appropriate for mental health based discussions, even general ones?

nesf

snorlax wrote:

i still think it's a difficult call, what exactly do you have in mind/ i can't say im too comfortable with it. perphaps a psychiatry forum or medicine one may be more appropriate for mental health based discussions, even general ones?

Perhaps, that's why I decided to run it past you first

I'm thinking along the lines of:

So you can manage to attend at most 60% of your lecturers if you don't hit too bad a patch. What should you do to keep up with the other 40%?

Just general advice on the practical side of things. Actually discussing what problems people with different mental illnesses face specifically would not be involved. That would be too near to diagnosis tbh.


Though, if you want to keep it completely theoretical then I can understand that you might not want such threads on here. I think it would be more interesting if more practical real life aspects were also discussed, but that's just my opinion.

The part that has to be absolutely kept off of here is the part between the theory and the practical side of all this. Thats the diagnosis and treatment. Whether one can discuss the theory and practical side without people straying into diagnosis and treatment is not something I'm sure of.


I would think, as on medicine, that general discussion is fine. But that specific things like matching symptoms to diagnosis would be totally off. Discussing the anti-psychiatry movement could be interesting and relevant to the forum. While discussing what actually diagnoses someone as schizophrenic would not be.

But that's just my opinion, which isn't really worth a lot on here. I won't argue with you over this.

Playboy

Discussing specific treatments for patients in a clinical setting would be beyond the abilities of anybody but a qualified clinical psychologist or a phd student and should be kept as far away from this board as possible.But Psychology is a huge discipline with many practical applications outside of a clinical setting and I dont see why they shouldnt be discussed here.

snorlax

i have come to a decision (at least temporarily in light of the posts above), the charter has been modified accordingly.

i will re-open the thread that i locked but please read the charter before posting in it.

John

snorlax wrote:

i have come to a decision (at least temporarily in light of the posts above), the charter has been modified accordingly.

i will re-open the thread that i locked but please read the charter before posting in it.

I think that revised charter will allow easier discussion and debate as it's hard to discuss psychology without bringing in psychopathologies. So in short, I think your new charter is good snorlax.

DrIndy

If it becomes a discussion on psychiatry or neuroscience, send the thread my way and I will nurture it. the issue is not medical advice, but making an incorrect diagnosis or recommending an inappropriate therapy that can result in harm.

Hence discussion even in depth and explaining the intricasies of psychotherapy with someone who is receiving it is OK, but recommending a change of therapy is not. Likewise anyone who wants to talk about drugs on Biology/Medicine is welcome to - but not to ask/be encouraged to stop/change them.

Adblock

First of all I am disgusted with the way in which the psychology forum is moving.


1) Snorlax you are being far to protective of the forum. There was nothing said in the
Could Mental Illness be a useful tool of the mind? Forum that you wouldn’t read in a scientific Journal such as Scientific American or Nature. A discussion of mental health should be welcomed not criticized and controlled to the point that there is no discussion.

I agree a specific diagnosis and suggested treatment such as “you are suffering from X, then take A amount of B is to be forbidden. But a discussion of the effects of SSRI’s and or any other treatment should be allowed.

2)

nesf wrote:

I was more thinking of a more general discussion of what problems are usually encountered in general (lower attendance, not always able to do work etc) and how to combat them and such. Rather than an illness specific discussion.

This is completely off the mark. Imagine if the same was said in the Math, Physics forum. We better not talk about the physics of ballistics for fear someone might get shot.

This forum has been dumbed down in record time. I assume in a month or two you will be discussing how to redecorate your living rooms.

snorlax

frist of all this is chiefly a forum for psychology not psychiatry, i will allow the discusion of mental health from only a psychological point of view as i will not open my self or boards to liablities around drugs taking.

rules are there for a reason to protect people and to protect boards. if everyone did what they wanted anarchy would ensue.

since this forum is fairly new some rules need to be ironed out as someone said earlier it is a very broad subject and needs certain controls especially around the discussing of drugs etc. in future i will send all threads that aren't looking at mental illness from a psychological point of view (eg from a psychiatric point of view) to the medicine forum seen as Indy seems to want to deal with them there.

Playboy

DrIndy wrote:

If it becomes a discussion on psychiatry or neuroscience, send the thread my way and I will nurture it. the issue is not medical advice, but making an incorrect diagnosis or recommending an inappropriate therapy that can result in harm.

Are you a psychiatrist? Even if you are how would any one else know you were?

DrIndy wrote:

Hence discussion even in depth and explaining the intricasies of psychotherapy with someone who is receiving it is OK, but recommending a change of therapy is not. Likewise anyone who wants to talk about drugs on Biology/Medicine is welcome to - but not to ask/be encouraged to stop/change them.

Does psychotherapy even work? It's an old and out of date school.

Playboy

snorlax wrote:

frist of all this is chiefly a forum for psychology not psychiatry, i will allow the discusion of mental health from only a psychological point of view as i will not open my self or boards to liablities around drugs taking.

rules are there for a reason to protect people and to protect boards. if everyone did what they wanted anarchy would ensue.

since this forum is fairly new some rules need to be ironed out as someone said earlier it is a very broad subject and needs certain controls especially around the discussing of drugs etc. in future i will send all threads that aren't looking at mental illness from a psychological point of view (eg from a psychiatric point of view) to the medicine forum seen as Indy seems to want to deal with them there.

I agree. As I said before psychology is huge field with many practical applications across a number of fields such as health, education, work, etc. Clinical Psychology is only one small section of psychology which many psychologists would argue doesnt impress in terms of results and research. I don't understand why people are fixating on the clinical side. It is dangerous to talk about specific illnesses and their treatments on a message board. If you are interested in diagnosing mental illness then read the DSM IV. If you are worried that something is wrong with you then go to the doctor and he will refer you to someone who will alleivate your fears.

John

Does psychotherapy even work? It's an old and out of date school.

In some things I believe it does work but for the most part I think it's useless or even damaging (for an extreme case look at the number of false childhood abuse memories "revealed" by psychotherapists).

It is dangerous to talk about specific illnesses and their treatments on a message board. If you are interested in diagnosing mental illness then read the DSM IV. If you are worried that something is wrong with you then go to the doctor and he will refer you to someone who will alleivate your fears.

It is dangerous and you have to be careful. I think that most people wouldn't know where to start with the DSM IV, much in the same way that people reading a medical dictionary will look at symptoms and think they have a serious heart condition when it's only heartburn. However, I think there is nothing wrong in talking about about the theories about mental disorders and the reasoning behind the treatments once someone has not logged in and asked "Do I have schizophrenia and how do I get rid of it?".

snorlax

Playboy i actually know DrIndy from college he is actually a doctor, just graduated last year.

he knows more then i do about detailed threads around drugs etc and is probably better able to mod what should/ shouldn't be said in them too (although i did a year of psychiatry myself too).

i have to say one thing though, personally i don't think the internet is the best place to discuss intracies of medicine as god knows who's reading your thread even if you we're a consultant psychiatrist it would be impossible to control it especially if it was a PI for someone.

nesf

Adblock wrote:

2)
This is completely off the mark. Imagine if the same was said in the Math, Physics forum. We better not talk about the physics of ballistics for fear someone might get shot.

This forum has been dumbed down in record time. I assume in a month or two you will be discussing how to redecorate your living rooms.

Your analogy doesn't work. Teaching someone theoretical ballistics doesn't teach them how to fire a gun. Most people seem to be able to tell the difference between the two.

Discussing treatments for specific illnesses is similar. It's interesting and there is loads to talk about. But people don't seem to understand that you need a lot of training before you can make treatment decisions.

It's an attempt to limit potential harm rather than to dumb down the forum tbh.

Adblock

nesf wrote:

Your analogy doesn't work. Teaching someone theoretical ballistics doesn't teach them how to fire a gun. Most people seem to be able to tell the difference between the two.

Discussing treatments for specific illnesses is similar. It's interesting and there is loads to talk about. But people don't seem to understand that you need a lot of training before you can make treatment decisions.

It's an attempt to limit potential harm rather than to dumb down the forum tbh.

No my analogy dose work [regardless a person with a brain the size of a pee could understand my comparison] Anyway I was so annoyed about the way the forum has limited the discussion of psychology I wasn’t going to post here anymore. But I have briefly changed my mind.

Anyway

I believe a lot of you have forgotten a little idea called free speech. This is a discussion forum. Anyone who comes here looking for medical advice is incompetent. If they follow any suggestions on this board about diagnosis/treatment then they are very very very stupid and boards cannot be liable for other peoples stupidity. But do not be of the illusion that mentally ill people are retarded. This is exactly the stigma I thought discussion would elevate. You all talk like mentally ill people are little babies and need to be minded from the big bad world.

Also
You are contradicting yourself.

nesf wrote:

I was more thinking of a more general discussion of what problems are usually encountered in general (lower attendance, not always able to do work etc) and how to combat them and such. Rather than an illness specific discussion.

Read this quote 10 times if you need to. This is exactly what boards should not discuss. Honestly how do you foresee this attitude to discussion taking place?

Dumb person #1 Ah I don’t feel like going to work!!
Dumb person #2 lets discuss.
Dumb person #3 I think you’re depressed.
Dumb person #4 I agree you’re depressed.
Dumb person #5 get yourself some *****.

I do have to agree with DrIndy

DrIndy wrote:

Hence discussion even in depth and explaining the intricasies of psychotherapy with someone who is receiving it is OK, but recommending a change of therapy is not. Likewise anyone who wants to talk about drugs on Biology/Medicine is welcome to - but not to ask/be encouraged to stop/change them.

nesf

Whoever started that rumour about free speech being a right on here needs a good kick in the head.

Adblock

nesf wrote:

Whoever started that rumour about free speech being a right on here needs a good kick in the head.

Ha ha, sorry nesf if i seemed a bit crazy there. :rolleyes:
I tend to get very taken aback by debate.:D

"Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everyone in good society holds exactly the same opinion. "

~Oscar Wilde

nesf

I enjoy arguments as much as the next person. But I think this is a case of us misreading each other's posts/intentions.

hippie

"Does psychotherapy even work?"

That's a good question, and the short answer would be that, yes, it does work for some people, but they have to be in a particular state of mind and not too vulnerable. Psychotherapists would often say they treat the 'walking wounded'. It can take years and involves a serious amount of commitment from the client. It's not for everyone.

In terms of your comments regarding clinical psychology Playboy, I take some offence when you state that "psychologists would argue doesnt impress in terms of results and research". Clinical psychology has contributed a significant amount of useful research to the area of mental health and continues to improve its methods of research and application. It can be a highly effective method of treating children and adults in varying states of distress and could do with far more funding and resources to create a more effective service in this country.

Myksyk

The term 'psychotherapy' is far too broad to be useful. There are allusions to over 500 different psychotherapies in the literature. If useful questions are to be asked with the prospect of useful answers then we should really be asking if a specific therapy has been successfully demonstrated to be effective with a specific problem.

snorlax

i would be interested in learning more abot psychotherapy as I considered it as a postgrad corse. do you know any good introductory texts or even links Myksk, have you studied it in depth in college? i d like to learn more .
As an OT i employ a lot of CBT techniques eg using motivational strategies to treat those with depression, or for reinforcement of appropriate behaviours to those who have challenging ones.

Myksyk

Hi Snorlax. Again it depends on what psychotherapy you would like to study. The standard use of the term would appear to reflect the idea that all psychotherapies are the same both in terms of the good they can do and the harm they can do ... this is simply not the case. CBT is a good evidence-based therapy which has a substantial body of research behind its approaches to various specific problems (e.g. depression, anxiety disorders etc). Other psychotherapies may be useful but consistently fail to produce significant research which parses out the useful factors of the therapy from the useless. Even strident critics of therapy admit it is useful (e.g. see Robyn Dawes' "House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth") but suggest that the factors which are most significant on producing change are 'non-specific' (therpaist warmth, empathy etc). A lot of other research backs this up. However, when you specify a problem and a therapy you can see differences in outcomes. For example, it is accepted that CBT is demonstrably more effective than psychoanalytic approaches when dealing with something like social phobia or panic disorder. Having said that, people are attracted to the more esoteric practices like analysis. I'm more sceptical about these but that may not reflect the general trend in clinical psychology. All I would suggest is that you enter the general territory of psychotherapy with a sceptical mind and a clear understanding that there are many different therapies with widely differing techniques and sometimes mutually contradictory theoretical bases. I feel you need to have a coherent position on 'normal' development and functioning before you can decide if a psychotherapeutic approach is consistent with your understanding of psychology (and other related disciplines (neuroscience, biology, behavioural genetics, social psychology etc etc). I'm not sure if I'm being clear there but if you have any comments come back and I'll try to clarify.

snorlax

yes we learn a lot about the therapeutic use of self when dealing with clients either with physical or mental disabilities. we are taught to be empathetic rather then sympathetic as there is potential for emotional burn out considering the settings you may find yourself in.
We would use also use a lot of CBT techniques with those with memory problems and use cueing and prompting as well as the environment to help reinforce learning (which is especially necessary if someone suffers a stroke or Traumatic brain injury). There is a lot of research around CBT, and it does seem a lot more concrete and requires the client to be an active agent in the process rather then just a passive participator. for example i undertook a course in counselling skills(primarily listening skills) and am currently on the Peer Support Network committee (for the last 2years). the techniques we learned on PSN training course we're much more passive and involved actively listening rather then advocating change. i do see that counselling does to a certain extent play a part in helping those who just need someone to listen to their problems. but it does not really help in actively changing a pattern of thinking/ behaving, e.g. if the person has a very negative view of themselves/ others (similar to Bowlby's internal working model) and is going around in circles they may need a more direct approach to change this way of thinking.

i actually found trying not to advise people what to do to help themselves one of the hardest aspects of my training for the PSN as you want to say "you should do X etc" and sometimes to view a problem from outside has a more objective quality to it and isn't touched on by emotions.
i think the best idea is to make use of yourself to the best of your ability and be flexible in your approaches in dealing with clients.

i have a background in physiology and (neuro-anatomy/ psychiatry) as such i know that the limbic system has direct neural connections to the motor cortex and as a result our emotions have an impact on what we do , and vice versa during exercise endorphins are released which had similar properties to opiates and influence our emotional system by making us feel happier. i think it is always important to bear mind that all systems are connected and none are sole operators, which is why techniques like breathing/ relaxation can be very useful in treating those with mental illness in conjunction CBT/ other psychotherapy techniques to change patterns in thinking.

hippie

Clinical psychologists are trained in the use of CBT mainly and then are given some general grounding in other psychotherapeutic theories, depending on their placements. CBT has been found to be very effective with adults, not so much with children, in dealing with difficulties such as phobias or anxiety. However, it often does not focus on the source of the difficulty, but more on how to deal with it differently in the present and future. And, it is not successful with all difficulties. It is becoming more common for therapists trained in CBT to also train in some sort of psychotherapy and in family systems therapy and vice versa. Basically, a good therapist should have a strong understanding of various therapies and be able to apply them appropriate to the client and the presenting difficulty.

A good intro to psychotherapy is: Bateman, A., Brown, D., Pedder, J.
(2000). Introduction to psychotherapy: an outline of psychodynamic principles and practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

For some interesting reading in psychoanalysis:
Winnicott (1982) Playing and Reality
Jung (1995) Memories, dreams, reflections. London: Fontana press.
Segal, J. (1992) Melanie Klein. London: Sage.

snorlax

thanks for the references Hippie

hippie

No probs

Myksyk

Hippie wrote:

However, it often does not focus on the source of the difficulty, but more on how to deal with it differently in the present and future.

Hi Hippie. You seem to be echoing a commonly held position that psychotherapy must somehow identify the (presumed) source of the problem in order to alleviate it. I think this is true in a limited number of cases but otherwise has been shown to be an unsubstantiated part of psychoanalytic theorising about psychological problems.

Very few psychological problems have their source in specific events or incidents. Some psychological problems may be physiological in origin (e.g. panic disorder), some may even have a genetic component, most others are the result of the confluence of an enormous variety of factors. Even in those siutations where all the psychological symptomatology can be sourced to a single event (e.g. a traumatic incident) the effective treatments are those which deal with the intertwining patterns of emotion, behaviour and cognition which arise from the event and exert themselves in the present; maintaining the problem over years. These 'symptoms' (beliefs, feelings, behaviours etc) ARE the problem. This is where evidence-based therapies like CBT have shown themselves to be genuinely useful in some cases.

And, it is not successful with all difficulties.

There is no therapy, nor combination of therapies which answers all problems. One often waits in vain for psychologists and psychotherapists to admit their quite significant limitations. We simply do not have all the answers (not even a respectable percentage of them!)... and we should say so. We are no different in this to any other profession.

As a final point, I believe Psychologists and psychotherapists of all hues should be wary of proudly wearing their 'eclectic' hats. The idea that we should use particular techniques if they work is fine to a point but we should also be interested in some sort of internal theoretical consistency. Using techniques which come from mutually exclusive theoretical backgrounds should leave all practitioners dissatisfied to some degree.

Playboy

hippie wrote:

In terms of your comments regarding clinical psychology Playboy, I take some offence when you state that "psychologists would argue doesnt impress in terms of results and research". Clinical psychology has contributed a significant amount of useful research to the area of mental health and continues to improve its methods of research and application. It can be a highly effective method of treating children and adults in varying states of distress and could do with far more funding and resources to create a more effective service in this country.

Sorry but I think you misunderstood me or I wasnt clear. I do believe Clinical Psychology is a worthwhile enterprise and indeed could do with some more funding and training. However there is an attitude in Psychology that is very sceptical of certain clinical methods and their effectiveness. Maybe there needs to be a more coherent and consistent approach to therapy instead of the more school centered approaches such as ABA or CBT.

JuliusCaesar

HI Playboy, I think you may misunderstand CBT. As Beck said "If it works, it's CBT" In other words, as long as it is effective, it is taken under the CBT wing. There's a move to rename CBT as either data-based therapies (USA) or evidence-based therapy (UK). Basically, any technique used in CBT is only the 'surface' of what goes on but it seems to be all ppl are interested in. The theory, the rationale, the formulation, the functional analysis do not attract attention.

Eoghan-psych

Adblock wrote:

First of all I am disgusted with the way in which the psychology forum is moving.


1) Snorlax you are being far to protective of the forum. There was nothing said in the
Could Mental Illness be a useful tool of the mind? Forum that you wouldn’t read in a scientific Journal such as Scientific American or Nature. A discussion of mental health should be welcomed not criticized and controlled to the point that there is no discussion.

Most people won't, or can't, read journals so that's fairly irrelevant. The danger is that people mistake a discussion as instruction. There is no requirement here that people on the board have any actual experience of studying psychology.

Doctors have a concept known as 'med student syndrome' whereby beginning med students rapidly convince themselves that they exhibit any number of symptoms of whatever condition they are studying. They are taught to avoid that, as are psych students. The general population doesn't have any experience in differentiating between 'clinically significant' symptoms and regular run of the mill variation in daily living.

Adblock wrote:

This is completely off the mark. Imagine if the same was said in the Math, Physics forum. We better not talk about the physics of ballistics for fear someone might get shot.

Very poor analogy. A far better analogy would be a discussion on a chemistry forum of how to make exploding paste.

Adblock wrote:

This forum has been dumbed down in record time. I assume in a month or two you will be discussing how to redecorate your living rooms.

The last week's worth of posts centred on people trying to plan out their careers in psychology. That's not "dumbed down".