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

Link to post

  • dropdrip@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 天前

    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.

    For example, a more recent meta-analysis by Wykes and colleagues (2008) examined controlled trials of CBT for schizophrenia and confirmed findings from previous meta-analyses (e.g., Gould et al., 2001; Rector & Beck, 2001), suggesting that CBT had a small to medium effect size as compared to control conditions on both positive and negative symptoms.

    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:

    CBT for depression was more effective than control conditions such as waiting list or no treatment

    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.

    • Hildegard (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 天前

      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.

    • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 天前

      How about this?

      Method: Thirty-four CBTp trials with data in the public domain were used as source data for a meta-analysis and investigation of the effects of trial methodology using the Clinical Trial Assessment Measure (CTAM).

      Results: There were overall beneficial effects for the target symptom (33 studies; effect size = 0.400 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.252, 0.548]) as well as significant effects for positive symptoms (32 studies), negative symptoms (23 studies), functioning (15 studies), mood (13 studies), and social anxiety (2 studies) with effects ranging from 0.35 to 0.44. However, there was no effect on hopelessness. Improvements in one domain were correlated with improvements in others. Trials in which raters were aware of group allocation had an inflated effect size of approximately 50%-100%. But rigorous CBTp studies showed benefit (estimated effect size = 0.223; 95% CI = 0.017, 0.428) although the lower end of the CI should be noted. Secondary outcomes (eg, negative symptoms) were also affected such that in the group of methodologically adequate studies the effect sizes were not significant.

      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.

    • KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 天前

      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.

      • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 天前

        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.

    • starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 天前

      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 :/