Absolutely: The Truth of Brad
- From: "Card XII" <dlrodgers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:37:50 GMT
brad jesness, the loser on Harriett Ave. in Minneapolis, claimed to be
"NayNay" <NayNay@xxxxxxxx> and then he wrote in message
news:43037c3e_2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The truth of Brad, from his my_posts.htm web page:
If it's the truth, why do you have to post anonymously?
> Brief Statement of some of my Views: [Big Blank Stare]
Even a long version of your views is empty, moron.
> Here is a brief version of some of the Major Views I have express on the
> Internet.
> (These views are backed by giants in the Counseling and Clinical
> Psychology
> Fields, including Allen Ivey (U Mass) and
> Alvin Mahrer (APA Distinguished Psychologist Award Winner)
They didn't support you, idiot. They tried to sell you a book!
> SCIENCE FAQ ON THE STATE OF THE 'SCIENCE' (or LACK THEREOF) IN
> PSYCHOTHERAPY
You know nothing about science, or about psychology. You were never able to
get into a psychology grad program and you couldn't finish the grad program
in education. You have never published any research, never worked in a
psychology lab, nothing.
You are a lying hack!
Here's where you can get some great info, brad. Here are some of my
favorite brad jesness chants:
The newest link: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/archive.html
And then there are:
http://www.spamblocked.com/bj_faq/
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/bj_faq/
http://www.the-foxhole.org/bjfaq/
http://www.thesbl.com/bradlee
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/brad/
http://www.seige-perilous.org/bwad/
http://www.morningmist.org/kooks/bj/
Holy sites. Full of archival data and facts.
Card XII
Hammer of Thor, May 2005
> See http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm for more info. on the
> topics below (this page is equivalent to the index.htm page).
>
> The Answers to Science FAQs on Psychotherapy (below) will describe in
> detail why the following brief summary statement is as true today as it
> has ever been:
>
> "After you match people for everything except psyc training, there is no
> evidence psychologists are better at ANY noteworthy human skill or
> activity. This is an absolute fact. What they have are meaningless
> credentials, empirically speaking."
>
> All the information in the FAQ below is completely current and accurate.
> It is
> as true today as it has ever been, perhaps more so since the
> psychotherapy
> field continues to pretend to science and operate in a fraudulent way.
> All
> the information in the 2 links referred to is also completely factual
> and accurate.
>
> The science FAQ below describes MAJOR issues and questions that
> are essential for the foundation of any science of psychotherapy, but
> which have not been dealt with or adequately addressed in any way by the
> profession. The issues are as important as ever and nothing is being
> done to rectify the situation. There can be no real foundation for
> psychotherapy or any efficient advancement until and unless these issues
> are dealt with. The Amer. Psychol. Assoc. actively avoids dealing with
> any
> of these
> questions in any reasonable, proper way.
>
>
> Issue 1, Regarding who are good counselors (cute title for issue):
> "We can't 'Just Go With The Best' UNTIL We can
> Determine what CONSTITUTES "the Best" and make sure we know where to
> concentrate training to make "THE Best" otherwise we won't really have
> the best and won't really get the best. Okay ?"
>
> [Let me deal with your confusion from my title (above) by trying to
> state the issue still briefly,
> but more simply: If you don't know what good peer counselors can do or
> what they can easily be trained to do and handle, you will not know
> where you really need SPECIALLY trained (long trained) individuals or
> the problems that they especially need to be trained for.
>
> Trying for ten
> words or less: "If you don't make comparisons with regular good people,
> you don't know what you got." (scientifically speaking) (Sorry, 15
> words.)]
>
> OK, Let's take a look at this specific issue in a little more detail:
>
> A major set of FOUNDATION research studies for the
> counseling/"therapy" field has not yet been done. AND indeed, ONLY 3
> CONTROLLED studies (the last in 1979 !) have been done comparing the
> effects of counseling from professionals *with* counseling from "other
> reasonable helpers" (with no professional grad. training). THIS, in
> spite of the fact that these best studies in the area essentially show
> that other REASONABLE helpers do as well for arguably a broad range of
> problems. These studies, at the same time, indicate the other helpers
> are an ethical comparison group, having been found *good* for a broad
> range of problems for which counseling is most often sought. More
> recently much research shows peer counselors in colleges to be VERY
> helpful (though their performance is NOT directly compared to that of
> professional helpers in these studies).
>
> ANYWAY, these studies are NEEDED to show where professionals ARE
> really needed AND where treatments need to be developed (as is, this
> situation REMAINS VERY UNCLEAR). These studies might well also indicate
> the desirability of other mental health care provider roles (like well
> selected and well-trained peer counselors and/or more extensively
> trained paraprofessionals).
>
> Now to the "ethics" matter (the first defense of the many backing the
> status quo in the field): Not only have other reasonable helpers been
> shown effective for a broad range of problems in past studies, BUT ALSO:
> "other helpers" (peer counselors or "paras"), used as a comparison group
> to professionals (professionals who are licensed & grad.-trained), would
> ETHICALLY only have to be NO WORSE than the NO TREATMENT groups (or
> waitlist control groups) used today OR NO WORSE than the placebo
> controls used today for the study to be considered ethical. *AS WITH*
> the types of studies now done, clients treated by peer counselors OR
> "paras" could be offered professional care AFTER the study. (Today
> waitlist people wait up to around 3 months for treatment -- they just
> wait until the other exactly equivalently disturbed group is treated.)
>
> AGAIN: Without these studies we do NOT KNOW where professionals are
> really needed or most needed. Areas where treatment developments are
> most needed are not being identified. (I hope readers appreciate these
> and other LIKELY negative effects ON CLIENTS of an inexcusable LACK of
> work in certain, basic areas of FOUNDATION RESEARCH.) Also, a
> reasonable, delineated mental health care SYSTEM (with a variety of
> helpers or at least specializations) is NOT being developed. IT REALLY
> CAN'T BE FROM ONE STANDPOINT: *BASIC FOUNDATION* RESEARCH IS
> *NECESSARY*. There are many things about which one cannot conclude
> without clear research.
>
> ---------
>
> Issue #2: (not so cute title): "If you want to have a good
> classification system (and you MUST if you want to be any kind of
> scientist), THEN you must do work on making your diagnostic (or
> classification) system understandable. You must at the most basic level
> set up definitions so people show agreement on diagnoses (or formal
> classification)" This requires research DEVELOPING interrater
> reliability SURROUNDING the specific diagnostic criteria (PER SE) --
> i.e. as written -- between each "revision" of said criteria. This is
> rarely done.
>
>
>
> Regarding the therapists' major guide for objectivity, the Diagnostic
> and Stat. Manual of the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc.: It is without question
> that one could develop criteria-through-procedures that show MUCH better
> inter-rater agreement than the DSM. The last time the Amer. Psychia.
> Assoc. published and reported COLLECTED reliability data (within the DSM
> itself (DSM III)), there was only a r=.7 correlation between clinicians
> AS TO WHETHER a client had a disorder in the Mood Disorder GROUP (or
> NOT). SIMILARLY, there was an equally low level of agreement on whether
> a client had a disorder in an Anxiety CATEGORY (or NOT) (quite
> inadequate!!). (Often there is disagreement on whether a disorder is an
> Anxiety Disorder or a Mood Disorder.) AND this is all beside the issue
> that today's "diagnoses" are possibly good for very little and possibly
> often more destructive than constructive. VERY VERY little work was done
> investigating the inter-rater reliability of criteria *between* DSM-III
> and the meeting of the DSM-IV committee to define "new" diagnostic
> "options." In fact, only 14 of the top 40 diagnoses had ANY inter-rater
> reliability data generated on their criteria in the 15 years since
> DSM-III (source: DSM-IV Sourcebook, Vol. 2). Judging by the "new" ICD-10
> criteria and their inter-rater reliabilities, we can expect the DSM-IV
> diagnostic criteria to show little better inter-rater reliabilities than
> DSM-III (the DSM-IV criteria were made to be very similar and consistent
> with ICD-10).
>
> To comfort us in some way a number of therapists say "we don't like
> diagnoses either." A GOOD RETORT:
>
> I don't care about diagnoses, but you still need good definitions
> THROUGH THE PROCEDURES YOU USE within an agency to have the minimum
> science standard -- decent inter rater agreement. Otherwise you cannot
> discuss anything clearly with any others (you can't communicate). I am
> in no way comforted by the INDIVIDUAL therapist making his decisions in
> idiosyncratic ways, with way too little accountability. (It is a
> principle: power corrupts. Without accountability or communication you
> will have an inappropriate degree of power BECAUSE it is in no way
> appropriately negotiated, sanctioned, or scientifically monitored.)
>
> I am quite aware that "therapists" often do not use the DSM. They VERY
> often do not use ANY proven diagnostic OR CLASSIFICATION system. They
> think what ever they want and do whatever they want. I can't believe
> that people can possibly be given doctorates in this area (esp.
> given I have well shown that clinicians are in NO real sense whatsoever
> "science-practitioner" -- in NO sense at all).
>
> See http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm for more
> (this page is equivalent to the index.htm page).
>
> ------
>
> Issue #3: (not cute at all) :
> "Claims of Being "Science-Practitioners" are Fraudulent,
> Misleading and Scientifically Unethical"
>
> People of science should do the main basic science practices when and
> where they can (e.g. in their own local agencies or professional
> group).
> To be a "science-practitioner" you must do some science practice, not
> just read science (or in this case read a hodgepodge of poor science and
> speculatively "extrapolate").
>
> To be a "science-practitioner" you must clearly and regularly engage in
> some science procedure. Extrapolating from studies done in the
> irony tower is NOT practicing science. In fact, it is doing NOTHING
> special OR professional at all. Such a person is acting just as a lay
> reader of science and unless the practitioner uses the results of the
> single study (or much more rare, a study program)
> *directly* and in a controlled manner, he is only speculating.
>
> In NO substantial way is their any truth to the claim that clinical
> psychologists, etc. are science practitioners. Clinical
> psychologists do not have the discipline to establish good operational
> definitions WITHIN AGENCIES (e.g. for defining (i.e. diagnosing)
> personality disorders). NO PROGRESS CAN BE MADE UNDER THESE
> CIRCUMSTANCES (and many other similar problems-in-science cases).
>
> Because they are not scientists they cannot progress OR really work
> well together. They cannot self-evaluate. DSM criteria are so far from
> good operational definitions, I would not dignify them with the word
> "criteria." I know of no counselor or agency that has made any credible
> attempt at scientific respectability (or any that could be argued to be
> doing such). It is simply pitiful and inexcusable. Practice, as is, is
> actually an abuse of power and taking advantage of vulnerable
> populations. Someday such practice may result in lawsuits. Using
> diagnostic procedures that do lead to excellent inter-rater agreement is
> certainly possible today, not only at some level but at a useful level.
> At present counselors and therapists don't even respect each other.
>
> Since I am trained in psychology myself I know what is meant when it is
> said that therapists are "trained in scientific methods." Trouble is
> they engage in no regular (much less integral) scientific PROCEDURES in
> the normal or typical conduct of their work. This is true to such a
> degree it is unacceptable. And it is true of all therapists I know of.
> Again, their failure to develop operational definitions of personality
> disorders that at least show excellent within agency inter-rater
> reliability is an excellent illustration. There is correspondingly a
> lack of proven agreement on the application of procedures (loosely called
> "therapies") and on the assessment of results IN actual practice. The
> field itself recognizes deficiencies in how "therapies" are considered
> "validated." (Obviously with this problem most treatments should NOT be
> termed "therapies.")
>
> The fact that the idea of scientific procedure INTEGRAL in a therapist's
> daily work makes no sense to many therapists is not surprising. THERE
> ARE NONE!! I would hope you could see a problem there. While
> psychologists hear a lot about scientific methods, they do not learn to
> use them in an integrated and realistic way (even in the "ivory tower").
> No
> wonder when the controls of grad. school are gone and no others exist
> (as it is with most therapists), even the mock "science" behavior no
> longer
> occurs.
>
>
> "Necco" <necco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:2iKMe.4786$j21.4568
> @news01.roc.ny:
>
>> Here are some of my favorite brad jesness chants:
>>
>> The newest link: [snip anon defamatory site]
>>
>> And then there are:
>>
> [snip anon defamatory site mirrors]
>> Holy sites. Full of archival data and facts.
>>
>> Nomen Necco
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
.
- References:
- Spiritual chants
- From: Necco
- The Truth of Brad
- From: NayNay
- Spiritual chants
- Prev by Date: Re: Rogers supports STALKER to call Brad back
- Next by Date: Hoofie, look here: Read all Brad's Great Posts, defeating the field of psychotherapy
- Previous by thread: The Truth of Brad
- Next by thread: Re: The Truth of Brad
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
