Ed-- These observations are consistent with your point, but do not prove it. I'd still like to see something more rigorous. I'm not denying that ECT -may- work, but given the fact that it's a bit of a blunt instrument with serious potential side effects, I'd like to see stronger support.
On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Pollak, Edward (Retired) wrote: > Paul Brandon wrote, "And then there's the hypothesis that people change the > way that they talk about themselves in order to avoid going through it again." > That bit of nonsense has been around for many years despite extensive > evidence against it and virtually no supporting evidence. I wish that > instructors would stop promoting this absurd hypothesis. I've been listening > to this humanistic clap trap for 40 years and it really needs to end. > The most obvious disconfirming observations include a) ECT is equally > effective whether the treatment is given "eyes open" or under general > anesthesia. If the "avoidance hypothesis" is correct, one would predict that > ECT given "eyes open" would be far superior to ECT given under general > anesthesia. b) The fact that ECT is decidedly ineffective in most other > disorders. If depressives change there behavior to avoid "going through it > again" then why wouldn't that be true of patients with schizophrenia, mania, > OCD, etc., etc.? > Ed Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=16828 or send a blank email to leave-16828-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
