The reason it seems totally illogical for clinicians to not understand the "science of psychology" is then they possess an inadequate understanding of the crucial nature of systematic empiricism in assisting clinicians in determining the effectiveness of various therapeutic techniques. It constantly alarms and infuriates me how often I have noted that my colleagues who have a clinical versus an experimental background seem to not have the ability to understand what type of scientific support they should be necessary before they use any type of therapy. Would the rash of therapists who used hypnosis to assist their clients/patients to access their "recessed" memories have been so willing to use this potentially damaging strategy if they had had the ability to critically evaluate the scientific evidence for how ineffective hypnosis is in improving our memories? This is not a minor issue Michael but a major problem with the ongoing use by therapists of ineffective and possibly damaging therapeutic strategies.
Joan jwarm...@oakton.edu > I personally have no problem with psych students who want to be clinicians > not being interested in the "science of psychology". > > I always find it funny that the science types are sooo concerned that > everyone should take science very seriously. > Are the authors EQUALLY concerned about the state and training of the > empirical psychologists' human empathy and social interaction skills? I > bet > not. > > And if what the authors are saying is true, how come there arnt oodles of > positions available for empirical psychologists? :) > > --Mike > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
