| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Perhaps the most striking issue covered in this book is the discussion on studies that evaluate the efficacy of psychotherapy. In 1977, Mary Smith and Gene Glass published an article in American Psychologist which found that on a statistical level, psychotherapy works. Not that everyone improved, or no one got worse from treatment, but on a statistical level people were better off on the measure examined than someone chosen at random. Smith and Glass also found that the therapists' credentials (Ph.D., M.D., or no advanced degree), the therapists' experience, the type of therapy given (with the possible exception of behavioral techniques for well circumscribed behavioral problems), and the length of therapy were unrelated to the effectiveness/success of the therapy.
As Dawes states:
"In the years after the Smith and Glass article was published, many attempts were made to disprove their finding that the training, credentials, and experience of therapists are irrelevant. These attempts failed. (p.55)"
Very few books written by psychologists try to realistically look at psychology's flaws. Although psychology pays lip service to the concept of critically examining its tenants, it is seldom done. Mainstream psychology often dismisses books such as this one in passing as "harsh criticism" and ignores the message they offer.
Mr. Dawes, in his text, forgets to mention a number of empirical findings that support the effectiveness of psychotherapy. I wonder at this. It is not as if he had to look these up individually, they are standard course work in any graduate program of psychology. Further, although Mr. Dawes frequently discusses research methodology, he fails to acknowledge that individuals with more severe pathology are less likely to be served by the lay person. In other words, modern psychology has been shown to be more effective than your wise aunts advice, even when you are comparing problems that differ in magnitude.
I am troubled by many of the conclusions that Mr. Dawes has made based on research performed on professions other than psychology. For example, Mr. Dawes contends medical school interviews are similar in nature to therapy - I can't see how he could possibly hope to support this. I feel the same about parol hearings or the many examples he gives from psychiatry. While psychiatrists may work in mental health settings, they obtain little or no formal training in psychotherapy and certainly constitute an experimental confound. Further, Mr. Dawes goes as far to say all psychotherapy is about building self esteem and that all therapists are more motivated by their clinical judgement than by research findings.
... Read more ›Psychology doesn't work. Read more