[tomcam]

I have no opinion on him.

I can tell you I have gone to probably a dozen therapists and have received precious little to help and quite a bit more that hurt me. Psychology is not even close to a science. You can’t make false a falsifiable assertions and test them reliably.

I would trust his assertions slightly more, perhaps, than those of most psychologists.

[mnk47]

Well, he's not a neuroscientist either. Nor a psychiatrist. So GP's main point still holds.

[tomcam]

On quick inspection, his experiments seem to be fairly well controlled. I will venture a guess that they are a little better than average, and we know that only half of studies can be replicated.

Assuming that his data is fairly clean, I don’t see why it’s out of the realm of possibility that he could be contributing substantially to neuroscience no matter what is academic background. The results should speak for themselves.

IMHO academia is incredibly broken anyway, and the tenure system has had the opposite effect of it as was intended. Professors are now so desperate to keep tebure they do nothing to challenge the orthodoxy and everything to crush those who do.

[mnk47]

> On quick inspection, his experiments seem to be fairly well controlled

What experiments?

[DiggyJohnson]

Are the only people qualified to speak on the mental experience of being human neuroscientists and psychiatrists? Seems like you’re completely missing GP’s point.

[mnk47]

There's a difference between speaking on the mental experience of being human and throwing around words like "dopamine", and "detox" to support unfounded claims about miracle cures.

[tomcam]

Haven’t seen any mentions of miracle cures? But I have barely a passing knowledge of his work.