[wetwater]

I think therapy has potential to do more harm than good. Since its not based on science and none of the results are reproducable. This has caused me to be apprehensive about it in the first place. Since its not an actual science I'd rather not be vulnrable to a person and let them poke and prod me when there is no gurantee of a reproducable result.

When you are going to a therapist youre throwing the dice that the experiment works , with odd highly against you. There is a better chance you'll come out damaged then cured .

[xg15]

I mean, it's based on more science than all the alternatives.

Yes, the standards are a lot less rigorous and reproducability is worse than in the "hard sciences", but at least they are trying to get some kind of objective, reproducable result in the first place.

The alternatives to therapy are basically: Religion, family knowledge, random self-help books or trying to work it out yourself. In all three, the methods are even less stringent and objective than in psychology.

In my experience, psychology as a field is also open to new information from biological hard sciences, such as neuroscience.

Finally, note that psychology is not just used in therapy but also in advertising, UX design and tech in general, often in manipulative ways which run counter to the interests of users. Evidently, it works there. So then, why would the same knowledge suddenly be useless pseudoscience when it comes to therapy?

[wetwater]

>Yes, the standards are a lot less rigorous and reproducability is worse than in the "hard sciences", but at least they are trying to get some kind of objective, reproducable result in the first place.

This is a major red flag. This whole field is reeling under Credibility crisis.

People should be exposed to medical treatments which are tried , tested aproved and regulated. Which this field cant be further from yet they have the authority to advice people as under pretext of psycologists and therapists.

There should be even more regulation for psycologists and therapists , just like there is approval process for vaccines . Howcome we are allowing so many people to be exposed to medical treatments which have barely any regulation and no reproducablity.

[xg15]

That's correct and I agree that a lot more should be done. I'm just saying that right now, there is no better option. Also, if therapy really had no significant positive results (in aggregate!) I think we'd hear more about that from affected patients. Instead, you can find lots of accounts from people who said that therapy has greatly improved their lives.

(This is different from the horrible transgressions of the 19th and 2/3rds of the 20th century where the "results" were mostly how the patients appeared to others but not how they felt themselves - if you bothered to see them as humans at all)

[simbolit]

You are spam-posting this bullshit. Please stop. I answered you above when you posted the exact same two paragraphs.

Please read up on the science before claiming "is not based on science". Thanks!

[fsociety]

Do you have conclusive scientific evidence on your hypothesis? It doesn’t sound like it is based on science and might suffer from the replication crisis.

The Gottman Institute has produced solid work for relationship counseling.

[wetwater]

"solid" may sound affirming but doesnt really mean anything. I am open to believe that Gottman Institute is not selling snake oil. Please provide some peer reviewed papers in reputable journals about Couples Therapy with Reproducable results by Gottman Institute. I am even willing to relax Conceptual replication, some papers with exact replication will do.

>Do you have conclusive scientific evidence on your hypothesis? It doesn’t sound like it is based on science and might suffer from the replication crisis.

The onus of providing proof and supporting evidense lies on "therapists" and "psycologists" who make the claim that their work is science and it "helps" people in any way.