Reality is made up in our minds.
I don't believe in this therapy bullshit but I experienced breaking out of my mental cage thanks to psychedelics.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a scam aimed at simpletons, IQ89s that are not able to reflect their thinking and biases.
You can break it down to 'Just think differently about it!' or 'Think positive'. 'Just feel good!' (see Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy)
Furthermore psychology is not a real science.
Change my mind
Unfortunately I'm not 22, but a good chunk older. I am in CBT right now (for over 20 months) and it hasn't helped a bit. I can accept that like in carpentry there are good carpenters and there are bad ones. Just like therapists. I am just sticking to my bad one, because I don't have much choice. Also my insurance won't cover for another therapy round in the foreseeable future. I don't think he he isn't aware of me not making any progress, but takes the money from insurance anyways.
>Do you think that neurology is a real science?
Yes, neurology is a real science.
Even though its borders to psychiatry are fluid ( psychiatry - which is mostly bullshit, like: 'we don't know why people get depressed' (serotonin hypothesis, fucking kek. no physician worth his salt is taking that serious anymore. still, there are so many that keep parroting it.), 'but take those pills, they will help! If not, we will try others. Come back in 2 months and we will see!' An algorithm could replace pill clowns aka psychiatrists, because it's nothing more than trial and error.)
Neurology can diagnose diseases by examining things like biological material such as blood, cerebrospinal fluid or tissue samples from nerves and so much more ways to examine and make diagnoses. They have data. They can make exact statements about what the problem is and how to handle and heal it. They have scientific evidence. Studies, that can be replicated and data, values, that can show and explain the problem.
Take the 'science of happiness' (https://www.edx.org/course/the-science-of-happiness-3 - what I try hinting here is studies like 'people in [insert Northern European country] are the happiest' shit) How can an adult take shit like this serious? What is happiness? How can you measure it? Because people tell you they are happy or not? What defines happiness? There are no clear terms. You can't measure it other than asking people - hello response bias
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not a natural law. It's a theory that might be true for some, but maybe for as many it is not or differently ordered. How would you know?
Psychological studies can't be reproduced mostly. There are enough cases where renowned persons cooked their numbers or made them up completely. Sample sizes are often laughable low and in the end, you can't reproduce them, but people don't even try it. Because it would show what kind of clown show psychology as a science is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology
So, how do you measure success of psychotherapy? Of course when people feel better afterwards and can say that psychotherapy helped them. I don't deny that psychotherapy can help people which is great. I've heard about studies that show the positive placebo effect of homoeopathy which I think is also great.
What if I think I didn't get any better in those 20 months, but my therapist thinks I do. Why would he say something else but still continue to treat me fruitlessly? Imagine my insurance pays him 100 Euros for 50 minutes.
Get psychology out of the universities, bring the therapist training to trade schools and open it for many more people. Competition would bring prices down and more people could afford therapy. Do you think every fucking certified therapist is worth his and this much money or always competent? No.
I don't think I would feel any better or worse right now if I had talked to a former forklift driver that retrained to become a therapist in the last 20 months.
OK where do I even start... ok let's start here.
>Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not a natural law. It's a theory that might be true for some, but maybe for as many it is not or differently ordered. How would you know?
Guess what the scientific method is for? That's right, for checking whether a theory can be falsified.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs has not been proven wrong for 80 years. I'd say that's pretty good reproducibility.
Meanwhile, the "scientific evidence" you claim is reproducible, tends to suffer exactly from poor reproducibility. In fact, the entire field of biomedicine is in a huge replication crisis, the studies from last 20 years are likely mostly garbage.
Of course, the same is also true for a lot of research in psychology, where you can get around much easier just by waving hands and bullshitting, but to claim that because recent theories are often and easily falsified by lack of reproducibility doesn't imply that a theory that's 80 years old and still hasn't been falsified must also be false.
