What if your life (seems) to go better with prayer?

[Myriad]

That is exactly the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. The one making the claim of the form "X exists" or "Y happens" (the two being trivially equivalent), a.k.a., a positive claim, is the one who needs to present the evidence. Saying that you're right about such a claim because the negative wasn't supported by compelling evidence is nonsense.

I mean, watch me do the same: the black dragon Alduin exists and he's going to return to devour the world, including Heaven and Hell. And I know that's true, because none of the naysayers claiming he doesn't exist has presented any compelling evidence to support that.

Now I realize that it's not easy to show that talking to someone isn't just placebo effect. I do realize the problem of having a control group who only think they're talking to someone about it, or for that matter going double-blind about THAT. It's not as easy as giving one group the new antibiotic pill and the other group just pressed lactic acid pills. In the case of pills, neither the patients nor the one giving them the pill can tell the difference, so double-blind works. It's not as easy to make someone just think they're in a group therapy session, when they aren't.

Fair enough.

But that still means you don't have evidence for the positive claim. And that's it.

It doesn't change how the burden of proof works. You don't get to then claim to be right because nobody proved the negative.

I met someone who was very anxious and upset. I asked why they were anxious and upset, and it turns out it was because they couldn't turn their ignition key to get their car started, and they were running late. I advised them to try forcefully turning the steering wheel (even though with the key not turned, the wheel won't move very far) to unstick the ignition lock. This worked, and they soon became less anxious and upset.

I consider that interaction to have helped that person.

You can argue that that wasn't really talk therapy, because it involved giving and applying practical advice for a specific situation But there's nothing in the definition of talk therapy that prevents (or even makes it unlikely for) such situational practical advice from being given and applied as part of the process.

I suppose you can still claim "talk therapy that doesn't include giving and applying practical situational advice never helped anyone" without having been contradicted by evidenced positive claims, yet.

 

[Thermal]

I have spent a few minutes thinking about this. I have to admit that it is a concept that I am struggling to understand. I am not disagreeing with your post. It is just not registering in my brain as a logical concept.

Ya, it's a little tough to put into words. The most rational view may be the same as what many gain through talking to a therapist; when you actually formulate your thoughts to express them to a listener, it changes them a little. Vague dark thoughts bouncing around in your head become simpler to deal under the sunlight of expression and identification. Also, when you are presenting your feelings to someone/something else, you might get how they would view your problem and what their response would be.

Way back when I used to pray, I started imagining that the answer from an all-powerful deity would be along the lines of "Shut up. You have it easy. And I know My Creation is banging. Get to work". And I stopped praying.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I met someone who was very anxious and upset. I asked why they were anxious and upset, and it turns out it was because they couldn't turn their ignition key to get their car started, and they were running late. I advised them to try forcefully turning the steering wheel (even though with the key not turned, the wheel won't move very far) to unstick the ignition lock. This worked, and they soon became less anxious and upset.

I consider that interaction to have helped that person.

You can argue that that wasn't really talk therapy, because it involved giving and applying practical advice for a specific situation But there's nothing in the definition of talk therapy that prevents (or even makes it unlikely for) such situational practical advice from being given and applied as part of the process.

Not being forbidden by any definition, and not being what the job and the theory behind it are about, are also not mutually exclusive.

I mean, it's also not forbidden by any definition to sleep with your lawyer. And I can also offer an anecdote to the effect that yep, it can happen. I mean, I did just that myself, way back. But that doesn't mean that that's what the legal profession is about

And it's not just random snark. I seriously mean that your example is exactly that much off the mark. The whole theory in psychology, starting from Freud to this day, is more like letting you talk about your problems (with some encouragement or neutral-ish question to help you along the way), until you figure out on your own terms in which way your own subconscious is plotting against you, so to speak. As in, because of what issue was it preventing you from remembering that you can turn the wheel to unjam the lock. Well, IF it's a psychological issue at work, anyway.

And even if you don't go full-tilt Freudian, you're still supposed to just let the guy organize his own thoughts -- again, IF it is a psychology-related thing -- rather than just telling him what he should do.

And if it isn't a psychological issue, which, let's face it, in that case most people would agree that that guy probably just didn't know that, then what you did is fully outside the scope of it. I mean literally as much outside the scope of it as helping someone relieve sexual tension is outside the scope of the legal profession.

You're not FORBIDDEN from offering some non-psychological help on the side, sure, but that's in the same way as an actor can also offer you advice for fixing your computer, or a policeman can offer you advice about what age to neuter your kitten at, or a taxi driver can tell you what's the best hotel in town. Let's face it, life would be outright impossible for any profession, if you were outright forbidden from doing anything outside the scope of that profession. But that doesn't make any advice they'll ever give, on any topic ever, somehow be a part of their profession.

Plus, that still brings us to the question: if it's not at the point where it's a random acquaintance happening by and offering the advice, but rather at the point where you pay someone to help you with such issues... why not ask someone qualified instead? If you go to a psychologist for advice on how to start your car, or any other of the examples above of people offering advice outside the scope of their qualification, it's a bit random whether they actually know that. They could give you the most competent advice ever, or they could tell you the most wrong thing ever. There is nothing in their actual certification and experience that guarantees either. You can for example have 20+ years of experience and all the qualification in the world in psychology, but only ride the bus and have no clue about cars.

 

[Thermal]

That's not what happens to me. If I'm dreading a situation I might send up a flare - "please help me deal with this." Next thing I know, I'm coping with the situation better than I expected to. Then, it seems only polite today say, "Thank you."

If repeated it is reinforced.

I don't expect this to be compelling evidence to anyone else.

I find it very compelling that that is your experience, and that it betters your life.

 

[Minoosh]

That is exactly the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. The one making the claim of the form "X exists" or "Y happens" (the two being trivially equivalent), a.k.a., a positive claim, is the one who needs to present the evidence. Saying that you're right about such a claim because the negative wasn't supported by compelling evidence is nonsense.

I mean, watch me do the same: the black dragon Alduin exists and he's going to return to devour the world, including Heaven and Hell. And I know that's true, because none of the naysayers claiming he doesn't exist has presented any compelling evidence to support that.

Now I realize that it's not easy to show that talking to someone isn't just placebo effect. I do realize the problem of having a control group who only think they're talking to someone about it, or for that matter going double-blind about THAT. It's not as easy as giving one group the new antibiotic pill and the other group just pressed lactic acid pills. In the case of pills, neither the patients nor the one giving them the pill can tell the difference, so double-blind works. It's not as easy to make someone just think they're in a group therapy session, when they aren't.

Fair enough.

But that still means you don't have evidence for the positive claim. And that's it.

It doesn't change how the burden of proof works. You don't get to then claim to be right because nobody proved the negative.

I could easily be violating the accepted rules of rational argument. "Talk therapy is useful" is a positive claim, but to me, "Talk therapy is useless " is also a claim. It's easy to find studies supporting my position. Feel free to rebut with something stronger than an anecdote.

As far as I can tell, you defined benefit as leaving the marriage, or at least making their spouse stop hitting them. You said talk therapy was useless or worse in this situation. Confiding in a relative was useless, too. But you know what sometimes helps? LOSING YOUR KIDS until you take concrete steps to provide a safe home. A family member reporting physical evidence of abuse could probably get that process started. I know it's a big step. In my work I could be criminally liable for *not* reporting it.

"Why don't they just leave?" From the Domestic Violence Hotline: Leaving is often the most dangerous time for a victim of abuse. That's one of 10 reasons listed, and "having an incompetent therapist" is not on the list.

 

[Minoosh]

I think this is great. If that works for you, why would anyone insist therapy is better?

The argument wasn't just that prayer is useless - Hans said talking to therapists was also useless.

 

[Minoosh]

It seems the NHS doesn't like the conclusion they cite ... So the evidence is not certain enough for them?

I don't know why NHS are so vague in describing the role of neurotransmitters. I think partly what they are saying is, "the science of neurotransmitter metabolism is complicated, sometimes paradoxical, and highly varied among individuals, and we don't always know exactly why, and there is some controversy about such-and-so." So they make a very bland statement, and a small bit of information.

On WebMD I found this: "Doctors don't know exactly how lithium works to stabilize a person's mood." And it's well-studied and has been around forever. This may just be a common disclaimer on public websites.

I'm not buying that at all. Therapy is very useful for many patients. But for others it isn't.

This is more problematic, but I think I know why they put it that way. They want people with mental illness to keep talking to their health-care providers. I think they're including almost everything in "talk therapy," even brief check-in visits.

A study posted above suggests that CBT combined with medication leads to better outcomes for schizophrenics than medication alone. Obviously they have messed-up brain chemicals and talk of finding a "root cause" sounds weird, almost cruel, but talk therapy apparently changed their brains.

I doubt if it would do much good if they weren't already stable on meds.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I could easily be violating the accepted rules of rational argument.

In fact, you are. Or in the same way I would if I were to claim there are invisible elves in my fridge, unless you show the evidence that they don't exist.

"Talk therapy is useful" is a positive claim, but to me, "Talk therapy is useless " is also a claim.

Yes, it's the negative claim. Which incidentally is the null hypothesis unless the positive is supported.

It's easy to find studies supporting my position.

Then please do so. Especially if it's that easy. Saying that someone COULD find evidence for it is not the same as supporting the claim.

Feel free to rebut with something stronger than an anecdote.

In fact, I don't need to present anything to rebut an unsupported positive claim. The fact that you didn't show any evidence for it is more than enough to fall back to the null hypothesis.

 

[whoanellie]

Yes, it's the negative claim. Which incidentally is the null hypothesis unless the positive is supported.

Here is a link to a meta-analysis of funded studies on treatment of depression.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137864

"The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest."

 

[Clutch Cargo]

What if your life (seems) to go better with prayer?

If sitting on the beach looking out at the sea makes me feel better in times of trouble then I just do it and don't make any gospel out of it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

My problem though is that none of that is really a double blind and when you rely on self-reporting of improvement, you're in about the same range as the self-reported results for placebo effect.

As Minoosh too pointed out up in the thread, just giving people some pressed lactic acid pills and telling them it's antidepressants, caused up to 40% or so of them to self-report that they got better. Hell, you can get people to self-report that they got better for a wide variety of conditions even from faith healing, homeopathy, or just wearing some magical crystal. That's placebo effect for ya.

(And just for the record, placebo effect doesn't mean that those pills actually heal anything. In a meta-study about different medication, it turned out that the percentage of cases actually healed after giving people placebo was identical to the cases where they were told not to take any medication.)

For actual medicine what we do is compare the results to those of placebo effect. It's not just that X% got healthier (or self-reported feeling better) after taking whatever new medicine is being tested. It's also not how high X is by itself. (After all, 99% of common colds heal just fine after taking sugar pills.) It's also compared to the Y% who did the same with a placebo. We know it works when X>Y and with a high enough statistical confidence to disprove the null hypothesis, i.e., show that it's not just some fluke.

Here we see that, say 39% of people who talked to a therapist say they feel better. Well, as opposed to what? If it were a pill we could compare it to the 40% that felt better with a placebo in a double blind trial, and say, ehh, maybe it doesn't actually help. Here how do you give a control group placebo therapy to compare it to that, and how do you make it double-blind?

And again, why does something that supposedly helps realign the chemical balance in the brain suffer from the same 'God doesn't heal amputees' problem that faith healing does? As soon as you have any actual measurable effects of an imbalance, like Parkinson, damn, suddenly psychotherapy doesn't help with that.

 

[Chanakya]

"Talk therapy is useful" is a positive claim, but to me, "Talk therapy is useless " is also a claim.

Yes, it's the negative claim. Which incidentally is the null hypothesis unless the positive is supported.

Sorry, Hans, but I don't think that's right. I agree fully with you as far as your overall post, as well as the larger point you're making in this thread, but as far as that specific portion, I'm afraid you seem to be squarely mistaken.

Every claim carries the burden of proof. It's not as if negative claims are somehow absolved of that burden. True, negative claims are sometimes/often difficult to back up; but it does not follow that, therefore, negative claims get a free pass; it only means that such negative claims, that one is unable to evidence, the rational person will not make at all.

As far as the null hypothesis, this is how I think it goes, in this case:

When Minoosh claims, "Talk therapy is useful", then it falls on her to back it up. In so doing, yes, the null hypothesis will be "talk therapy is not useful" -- or, more directly, and as you say, that "talk therapy is useless".

On the other hand, when you claim that "Talk therapy is useless", then it is you on whom the burden of proof vests; and, when you go about presenting your proof, the null hypothesis is, obviously, no longer the one that Minoosh needed to work with. That is, "Talk therapy does not work" isn't some kind of blanket null hypothesis.

*

I agree, this heuristic, if used without discernment, might well open the floodgates for the elves in your refrigerator, and for every kind of woo. Absolutely, agreed. But that does not, can not, change the fact that all claims, positive AND negative, carry the burden of proof; and it also does not change the fact that the null hypothesis will be a function of what it is you're trying to prove. I suppose the true null hypothesis, using that term loosely, will, in this case, be something like "We don't know if talk therapy is useful."

And this is where discernment comes in, as well as personal predilection, when it comes to how this bears on everyday life. When it comes to talk therapy, as well as your fridge elves, like you I'll choose to disbelieve until I'm shown that belief is warranted. But think of a claim like "Person X is honest." In every way that claim's similar to Minoosh's; but still, I could easily see myself -- not always, not by a long shot, but given everyday contexts and normal & generally inconsequential everyday situations/interactions -- weighing in toward a default of "People are honest". (Depending on the context, let me emphasize again. And without necessarily invalidating another's default of mistrust on general principles.)

At least that is how it appears to me.

*

Incidentally, re. all this talk about placebo: We tend to dismiss the placebo effect as irrelevant in these tests, and rightly so. But that effect isn't insignificant, and oftentimes it is pretty much awesome, and of the same order as the medication being tested. I wonder if there's some way to deliberately trigger the placebo effect in patients, not just to test some other drug, but directly as part of treatment?

 

[Clutch Cargo]

"Talk therapy is useful" is a positive claim, but to me, "Talk therapy is useless " is also a claim..

Thinking is inaudible talking.

 

[whoanellie]

My problem though is that none of that is really a double blind and when you rely on self-reporting of improvement, you're in about the same range as the self-reported results for placebo effect.

If this is a response to the PLOS ONE analysis I linked to above, it's not correct.

 

[Myriad]

If sitting on the beach looking out at the sea makes me feel better in times of trouble then I just do it and don't make any gospel out of it.

You might not, but plenty of people do the equivalent. I've been seeing similar advice offered multiple times daily for people stressed out by the pandemic or other current events. And it's good advice! (There, I just proselytized too.)

The advice usually doesn't involve a beach specifically, because we know most people don't have access to one (especially when many of them are closed to the public due to lockdown measures). So it could have the opposite of the intended effect. ("I find that going for a drive in my Lamborghini takes my mind off my financial difficulties; you should try it!")

But "get out of the house," "go for a walk," "go to a park," and "go somewhere there's trees," yes, all. the. time. Including here.

(And that's not even counting one site where it's neo-druids advising walking among trees, because there it really is proselytizing!)

 

[Clutch Cargo]

You might not, but plenty of people do the equivalent. I've been seeing similar advice offered multiple times daily for people stressed out by the pandemic or other current events. And it's good advice!

Anything that works is good.

There, I just proselytized too.

Naughty boy.

I find that going for a drive in my Lamborghini takes my mind off my financial difficulties; you should try it!

Mine’s in the garage but my MC12 helps in a pinch.

But "get out of the house," "go for a walk," "go to a park," and "go somewhere there's trees," yes, all. the. time. Including here.

I fully agree!

 

[arthwollipot]

Anything that works is good.

And it should be mentioned that in most cases of mental health treatment, several approaches are tried, sequentially and/or simultaneously. Talk therapy is rarely used by itself. Most of the time, treatment is trial-and-error. Sometimes you manage to settle on a single treatment that works for a long period of time, sometimes you have to switch up and just keep trying different things. Most approaches work in a limited way for a limited time. But they're usually better than no treatment at all.

 

[Clutch Cargo]

And it should be mentioned that in most cases of mental health treatment, several approaches are tried, sequentially and/or simultaneously. Talk therapy is rarely used by itself. Most of the time, treatment is trial-and-error. Sometimes you manage to settle on a single treatment that works for a long period of time, sometimes you have to switch up and just keep trying different things. Most approaches work in a limited way for a limited time. But they're usually better than no treatment at all.

I think making a change (a slight one) is always good. Sometimes it’s a matter of finding a way to appreciate what you have and other times it might be a taste of the unpleasant to see the difference but in the end, it's the same thing.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As far as I can tell, you defined benefit as leaving the marriage, or at least making their spouse stop hitting them. You said talk therapy was useless or worse in this situation. Confiding in a relative was useless, too. But you know what sometimes helps? LOSING YOUR KIDS until you take concrete steps to provide a safe home. A family member reporting physical evidence of abuse could probably get that process started. I know it's a big step. In my work I could be criminally liable for *not* reporting it.

"Why don't they just leave?" From the Domestic Violence Hotline: Leaving is often the most dangerous time for a victim of abuse. That's one of 10 reasons listed, and "having an incompetent therapist" is not on the list.

Just to clarify that too, we're talking about a woman who was spectacularly good at finding the dumbest imaginable reasons for not dumping the abusive idiot, even when help was offered. E.g., and I swear I'm not making any of this up:

- her father offered to take her back in, and yes, that includes her kids. (Her parents were separated. Her dad loved kids, in any case.) She's like, "OMG, people will think I'm having sex with dad, if I move back with him." Far as I could tell, the ass hole somehow managed to convince her of that nonsense, no matter that millions of people live with parents without screwing them, PornHub's "Incest" category notwithstanding. LITERALLY, that was her reason. LITERALLY, she thought that if she's living in the house of a man, it means she's getting sex from him, and that included the case when that man is her own father.

- the ass hole husbands own MOM (i.e., her own mother-in-law) was trying to get her out of it. You know you're having it bad when the MOM of the guy beating you up is trying to save you. Her reaction? "OMG, typical mother-in-law, trying to ruin my marriage." They ended up bitter enemies (and I really mean BITTER, as in, the Sith kind of raw, pure, boiling hatred,) for no other fault of the other woman than trying to help.

And generally, she was damn good at driving away everyone who was trying to help -- as you put it, "barging in with advice" -- and cultivating relationships with the worst ass holes who didn't give a flying f-word about her problems, and were bad for her. Most even used the information that she's vulnerable and gullible to take advantage of her.

And then concluding that EVERYONE is that kind of ass hole and she can't rely on anyone than the abusive idiot husband. Derp.

(And if you feel like pointing out in what category that places ME, you haven't been paying attention. I'M telling YOU that I'm a bigger ass hole than on goatse. Pay attention)

So, yeah, that's how good humans can be at rationalizing nonsense, when they're the ones doing all the talking. As in, not listening to anyone who asks uncomfortable questions, and only talking to gods, ancestors, and therapists that don't ask any uncomfortable questions.


Also, just for the record, I dunno what gave you the idea that my lack of trust in psychotherapy is based on just and solely that case I had the (mis)fortune of obverving first hand. Kinda like being the guest star to observe a train wreck in slow motion. That's just supposed to be an illustration.

Just jumping to the conclusion that that's the only reason for a hypothesis, is like seeing someone use Mercury's orbit as evidence for GR (General Relativity), and concluding that that's the ONLY evidence ever for GR.

 

[Minoosh]

Then please do so. Especially if it's that easy. Saying that someone COULD find evidence for it is not the same as supporting the claim.

I posted a link indicating that talk therapy and medication changed the brains of schizophrenics in measurable ways that medication alone did not. The study's author cited earlier work in social anxiety and other disorders.

Your claim that I didn't support my claim is hooey.