Quote:
Originally Posted by here today
I'm embarrassed to admit it but I spent 6 years studying cognitive and experimental psychology in the 1990's. All the course work for a Ph.D., no general exam or dissertation. I quit when my husband was diagnosed with a terminal disease AND it became clear that finishing the degree would not provide me with anything I wanted anymore. I had entered the program originally because I was interested in psychology and thought I could use the degree as an add-on to my work in computer science, but really I just wanted to study psychology and have access to the university library so that I could try to learn more and find out what was "wrong" with me. Never found that although I did learn a lot of interesting stuff!
With regard to the OP's question:
I do understand that a lot of people take the use of statistics to indicate that something is scientific, but there is still the fact that if something is "scientifically", statistically shown to have a "positive" effect for most people, for the average, it doesn't mean that it will have that effect on everyone.
Here are 2 articles I found when I searched for "treatment failure psychotherapy":
The Failure Rate of Psychotherapy: What it is and what we can do?
https://www.psychotherapy.net/interv...ilures-lambert |
Neuro/behavioral and computer science skills in one package is probably the hottest combination nowadays in basic mental health-related research with plenty of career opportunities, not just in scientific research. Many students strive to get trained this way now but realize how challenging and limited the whole thing is still, in spite of all the tremendous technological and theoretical advances. The fact that you wanted to integrate these back in the '90s, here today, shows a great deal of insightfulness and pragmatism. Unfortunately, these talents infamously do not tend to coincide with exceptional mental health, stability and happiness in life
Of course I also got into the neuro/behavioral sciences field driven strongly by personal, subjective interest. I was always doing research but in different fields when I was younger and made this shift in my mid 30's. In my experience most people in the field get motivated in a similar way - either own mental health challenges or dealing with family members, close friends, romantic partners... Therapists included. All the studies, knowledge, awareness etc did not help me a wee bit to get out of my own biggest hurdle with mental health (addiction) years ago. I would research it officially and successfully - and indulge in it in secret. It was the most horrible state of cognitive dissonance and violation of my own values, which led to awful cycles of self-hatred and desperation. I understood what was going on in my brain, why I could not get better, yet continued the behavior with all the clarity and lack of denial. I often wonder whether therapists go through similar dilemmas and intense conflicts between what they do and who they are... The knowledge and skills had become very helpful though once I reached a relatively decent stage of recovery and was feeling a lot better, but not before.
What I bolded in the quote above is of course one of the greatest challenges in any study attempting to understand psychological problems and design treatments of any kind:
individual variation. There is no freakin' way to integrate all the variety in experimental and analytical models, even the known individual differences, let alone the unknown ones. Surprise that mental health treatments, including medications, have such a low success rate? These days most professionals recognize and try to work with the importance of individual variation, but one can only use what one knows and even that gets extremely complex. And the mechanisms, experiences, permutations etc are seemingly endless in spite of identifiable patterns.