Bacchus

I've also found that research quality of most psychotherapy articles is atrocious.  I am ashamed to admit that I knew about the replication crisis before I sought therapy out. I do know that there are many phenomena in science that cannot be empirically measured. 

That being said, I've since looked at more "studies" and it is shocking how poor quality the methods are. Not being able to uphold the replication standard is one thing, but most studies use garbage statistical analysis. Most should have never made it through the peer-review process. They use qualitative statistical methods and then report quantitative inferences in the results- which in most science journals in akin to "rigging".

I think it's very shady and misleading. It also seems to depend on an uninformed consumer base (surprise surprise) because most people don't have time to dig through the studies and understand what exactly the data is saying.

On 7/4/2017 at 7:27 PM, Mary S said:

I found this astonishingly poorly thought out, since someone who recently lost his sight in an accident would not yet be able to read Braille!

Mary, this is exactly the nuanced thinking and recognition that is missing from the therapy model! It's such a great example that highlights the unexamined assumptions that many therapists make... presuming to know where the clients is at without any level of deeper thought.