Alt Text
A thread of the posts by @cait.bsky.social. They read as follows:
I had my first talk therapy session with my new therapist and she hit me with the “you’re very self-aware” ☹️
not the “pleasure to have in class” of therapy
that’s right, I know all the tools and have developed countertools so they no longer work. welcome to thunderdome
Just go on google scholar, type in “CBT meta analysis” and read the results
Sorry, I’m convinced meta analyses are garbage written by the least capable academics. They create yet another “study” that supports X or Y position without testing anything at all–that outsiders use to further an X or Y agenda. More meta-studies based off other meta-studies! It’s mountains of useless bullshit.
How brain-rotted do you have to be to think this says anything? “We reread the articles and they still say the same thing… because… they’re written.” Maybe we should perform another meta-analysis on the same articles! Third time’s the charm!
The underlying papers are of no use at all:
Like holy shit, really? This is your foundation of evidence that CBT works? Just look at the proponents of CBT–it’s a magical, effective treatment for everything under the sun! I can’t take it seriously, especially when it’s pushed as being as effective as medications.
I had some blood work done and it indicated that I would likely have a negative or poor response to an antidepressant I’d been taking for nearly a year. I’d tell the doctors that it does absolutely nothing, but they kept increasing the dose and insisted it would do something positive. It never did. These are the same disinterested, bullshit doctors that would tell you to engage in CBT.
All the therapists would gaslight you into believing it’s all your fault: just think your way out of it. Fucking bullshit. Absolute puerile bullshit.
The reality is I suffer from something that has a genetic component to it: crippling depression that runs in the maternal family. No. Talk therapy doesn’t do shit. No. CBT doesn’t do shit. Appropriate drugs actually work and I’m now in a so much better place after living my whole life with crippling depression, anxiety and panic attacks. I finally feel able to live a normal life. Do you know how much money and time I’ve wasted on talk-therapists? They’re not doctors. They’re complete time-wasters. They should be banned as I’m convinced they perpetuate harm.
Even proponents of talk-therapy have that fundamental caveat that absolves them of everything: it could take years before you see any results. It’s all con-artists selling snake-oil. Psychology is such a bull shit field.
Meta analysis is actually the best class of scientific evidence. A meta analysis looks at the totality of research on the subject. Because any single study can yield different results, scientists need to do many studies. Certainty in science comes from replication. If repeated studies show the same results, those results become more certain. If a new meta analysis confirms the result of an old meta analysis, it shows the results are likely to be accurate.
The new meta analysis included newer research. That conclusion is saying that the newer studies match the results of the old ones. That’s how science works. Nothing can be certain unless its replicable. Most science is like this. Papers are written by scientists for other scientists. Meta analysis from every field are exactly like this.
But any study like these looking for the general case. This analysis is making limited claims with strong certainty. This study is saying that, with a great deal of certainty, CBT has a small to medium effect on most people, but not all of those who get it.
There are many problems in medicine. You have encountered many of them.
Its clear CBT didn’t work for you, but that in no way means that the science is wrong, or that meta analysis, as a concept, are bad science.
The drugs that you are taking were studied in exactly the same way. There are analycies and meta analycies on their effects that will sound just as pointlessly reduntant as the one you looked at. That is the process.
How about this?
This is the “Wykes and colleagues (2008)” cited in the first sentence. The only reason your example paragraph sounds like that is because everything it wants to say has indeed already been written.
I’ll get back to you, probably over the weekend.
I agree with a lot of what you say, especially being forced into an “evidence” based system, I was like, who’s evidence? Because I can surface studies that show things you don’t support work, but anyway.
Ive gotten help from a talk therapist, she saved my life, but according to the healthcare system where I live now, there’s no evidence it helps and I can go fuck myself.
That’s why meta-analyses are so important. They look at every attempt at studying said thing and see whether it worked significantly more times than it didn’t, and why people don’t just cite a single study as conclusive evidence.
And what nuance do we lose in between?
That’s why writing meta-analyses is considered quite the task and why scientists only get to write them by invitation.
Sadly this is all medicine, I lost so much faith in it as soon as it wasn’t “extremely obvious problem with extremely obvious solution.” For the brain, it’s a much worse situation because we understand it so little. It turns into “throw random ideas at it and hope one works” and a lot of people are just lonely or needed lifestyle changes so it “works” for them :/
omg thanks for pointing that out
Not with my search settings, I’m not.
Google Scholar is scholar.google.com.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=CBT+meta-analysis