How the cult of trauma took over mental health

[Sanman]

I think I know why it seems like there are more male than female psychologists posting on here. Damn nerds are scaring the ladies away. In real life, I learned to hide my nerdiness. Sometimes I think my wife feels it was false advertising. lol
Also we are probably more geeks than nerds. Definitely psychology geeks and stat geeks and research geeks. Way too interested in that stuff.

The thing about nerdiness/geekiness is that it seems to change. As an Elder Millennial, I also learned to hide that part of myself in many social situations. However, I am not sure if I am nerdy/geeky or just ahead of the times. Every younger millennial is into computers/tech, they all know Harry Potter and Twilight (I was too old for this, but read plenty of Fantasy and Sci Fi), and they seem to like the things I was shunned for in high school. Some of those things are even cool. Somewhere between when I went to high school and when my wife did this all became mainstream. Asking a girl if she was a Hufflepuff or a Gryffindor would not be considered a pick up line in my day.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[R. Matey]

As an Elder Millennial

We're in the same generation?! All this time, I thought you were 48 or something.

 

[Sanman]

We're in the same generation?! All this time, I thought you were 48 or something.

I am not quite that old, though closer to that age than I want to admit. That said, I started grad school at age 21. So, professionally, I have been around for a minute.

 

[R. Matey]

I am not quite that old, though closer to that age than I want to admit. That said, I started grad school at age 21. So, professionally, I have been around for a minute.

Ah, I see. Good on you for using your twenties efficiently.

 

[Shiori]

I am also an elder millennial who played D&D, WoW, and MtG. Now I play cozy games like Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing, and Slime Rancher. My latest obsession was Disney Dreamlight Valley.

 

[cara susanna]

I am also an elder millennial who played D&D, WoW, and MtG. Now I play cozy games like Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing, and Slime Rancher. My latest obsession was Disney Dreamlight Valley.

I'm super into the Sims, Korean dramas, webcomics, and certain TV shows (like Bridgerton and The Righteous Gemstones). I also like Gundam, which is the Star Trek of Japan

 

[tr]

I think I know why it seems like there are more male than female psychologists posting on here.

Wait why do you think this is true? I feel like there is pretty good female representation on this forum. I think it's just that a handful of the most active posters seem male. But it's also globally true that men contribute more than women to discussions in mixed gender groups.

Also there's a tendency to assume male gender for posters with gender neutral usernames. I've been here a damn long time, posted a ton about female specific types of experiences, and there are still numerous longtime posters who think I'm male.

 

[Sanman]

Wait why do you think this is true? I feel like there is pretty good female representation on this forum. I think it's just that a handful of the most active posters seem male. But it's also globally true that men contribute more than women to discussions in mixed gender groups.

Also there's a tendency to assume male gender for posters with gender neutral usernames. I've been here a damn long time, posted a ton about female specific types of experiences, and there are still numerous longtime posters who think I'm male.

We likely have a higher proportion of men on the psych forum than in the profession overall. However, within neuropsychology, forensic and private practice tends to skew male. Neuropsychology was also a historically male dominated area. I believe, this changed around 2010 according to Jerry Sweet.

 

[R. Matey]

I also like Gundam, which is the Star Trek of Japan

I must check this out.

Wait why do you think this is true? I feel like there is pretty good female representation on this forum. I think it's just that a handful of the most active posters seem male. But it's also globally true that men contribute more than women to discussions in mixed gender groups.

My observation is this board's active posters are mostly clinicians at the VA and in neuropsych/forensics or other types of assessments. Academics, UCC psychologists, and PP psychologists doing therapy are all underrepresented.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Wait why do you think this is true? I feel like there is pretty good female representation on this forum. I think it's just that a handful of the most active posters seem male. But it's also globally true that men contribute more than women to discussions in mixed gender groups.

Also there's a tendency to assume male gender for posters with gender neutral usernames. I've been here a damn long time, posted a ton about female specific types of experiences, and there are still numerous longtime posters who think I'm male.

Maybe it's the profile pic/avatar

 

[cara susanna]

Wait why do you think this is true? I feel like there is pretty good female representation on this forum. I think it's just that a handful of the most active posters seem male. But it's also globally true that men contribute more than women to discussions in mixed gender groups.

Also there's a tendency to assume male gender for posters with gender neutral usernames. I've been here a damn long time, posted a ton about female specific types of experiences, and there are still numerous longtime posters who think I'm male.

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

Also, tr, I had no idea that you were a woman. I agree that it's the avatar, lol (not that I can talk, of course).

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

Also, tr, I had no idea that you were a woman. I agree that it's the avatar, lol (not that I can talk, of course).

Psshhh....I knew all along that you were an extraterrestrial.

 

[WisNeuro]

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

Also, tr, I had no idea that you were a woman. I agree that it's the avatar, lol (not that I can talk, of course).

I remember at least one or two of those. It seemed more that they did not like the usual debate tone here. Also, didn't one of those people chastise @Sanman for being a white male?

 

[Sanman]

I remember at least one or two of those. It seemed more that they did not like the usual debate tone here. Also, didn't one of those people chastise @Sanman for being a white male?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I love Richard Pryor and am trying to collect all of the old movies he was in (DVD and Blu Ray) just for kicks.

So far I just have Harlem Nights, Bustin' Loose, Brewster's Millions, See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Stir Crazy, The Toy and a really obscure drama that he and Harvey Keitel were in (Blue Collar) but I want to get them all because you never know what will or won't be available on streaming platforms in the future.

 

[tr]

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

Also, tr, I had no idea that you were a woman. I agree that it's the avatar, lol (not that I can talk, of course).

Ok I admit I know the avatar is misleading.
I originally picked it for easy identification of my specialty on the non-psych fora.
But I will also cop to enjoying the unearned credibility boost I get from being thought of as an old white dude.

I maintain that there is a default assumption of male gender in online fora though. Lots of the male posters have attractive women as their avatars (drop by the Lounge sometime) and it doesn't lead people to assume they are female.

I don't really see this board as a boys' club. The physician-scientist board is much worse for that. Actually, overall the male psychologists seem a lot more evolved than the male physicians.

 

[WisNeuro]

 

[clausewitz2]

Ok I admit I know the avatar is misleading.
I originally picked it for easy identification of my specialty on the non-psych fora.
But I will also cop to enjoying the unearned credibility boost I get from being thought of as an old white dude.

I maintain that there is a default assumption of male gender in online fora though. Lots of the male posters have attractive women as their avatars (drop by the Lounge sometime) and it doesn't lead people to assume they are female.

I don't really see this board as a boys' club. The physician-scientist board is much worse for that. Actually, overall the male psychologists seem a lot more evolved than the male physicians.

For the value of 'evolved' I expect you are using, medicine remains one of the acceptable fields for people who are quite religious but are good at science. It's always going to skew a bit more conservative.

 

[tr]

For the value of 'evolved' I expect you are using, medicine remains one of the acceptable fields for people who are quite religious but are good at science. It's always going to skew a bit more conservative.

Hm nah I was thinking more about the frat-boy humor and objectification of women that floats around some of the other boards. Nothing to do with religion.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Wait why do you think this is true? I feel like there is pretty good female representation on this forum. I think it's just that a handful of the most active posters seem male. But it's also globally true that men contribute more than women to discussions in mixed gender groups.

Also there's a tendency to assume male gender for posters with gender neutral usernames. I've been here a damn long time, posted a ton about female specific types of experiences, and there are still numerous longtime posters who think I'm male.

I was going out on a limb a bit. It does seem like there are more female regulars with the psychiatrists side than the psychologist side and it does contrast with what I experience out there in the real world where I work with majority of women all the time.

 

[cara susanna]

Speaking of the cult of trauma, what is with IFS? I've never even heard of it until Reddit. People are apparently using it as a trauma treatment?

 

[WisNeuro]

If it's Internal Family Systems, it's largely pseudoscience.

 

[cara susanna]

If it's Internal Family Systems, it's largely pseudoscience.

I figured it was, but can you elaborate?

 

[erg923]

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

Also, tr, I had no idea that you were a woman. I agree that it's the avatar, lol (not that I can talk, of course).

I think that was like 5 years ago. The gender of poster's is hard to know for sure (obviously), and I certainly don't get any "good ole boys" vibes here. I never really did other than a handful a veteran posters that I know are male and quite vocal and usually very science-based. But never like conversative/alt-right/misogynistic stuff.

I have posted semi-regularly for many years and am pretty vocally Catholic. But I hope that's not a "good ole boys" thing?

 

[borne_before]

I think that was like 5 years ago. The gender of poster's is hard to know for sure (obviously), and I certainly don't get any "good ole boys" vibes here. I never really did other than a handful a veteran posters that I know are male and quite vocal and usually very science-based. But never like conversative/alt-right/misogynistic stuff.

I have posted semi-regularly for many years and am pretty vocally Catholic. But I hope that's not a "good ole boys" thing?

Kari Lake won, MAGA, Dr. Jordan Peterson Ph.D., Trump 2024. I need me a trad wife.

 

[WisNeuro]

I figured it was, but can you elaborate?

Dissociation (Chapter 7) - Pseudoscience in Therapy

Pseudoscience in Therapy - March 2023

www.cambridge.org

From another article

"Internal family systems
Despite the name, this intervention has nothing to do with family therapy; it has to do with working
with alleged parts of an individual’s psyche. Also known as parts work, it has sometimes been used in
conjunction with highly controversial treatments for dissociative identity disorder. To date, there is
no evidence of safety and efficacy in the form of randomized controlled studies or any peer reviewed
published studies. This is by the developers’ own admission in a paper posted on their website
(Schwartz, Schwartz, & Galperin, n.d.): “‘Unfortunately, no well-constructed outcome studies testing
the IFS model and methods have been completed”’ and they maintain that ‘the best evidence of IFS
is from empirical observations in the clinician’s office’” (pp. 7–8)."

 

[WisNeuro]

A really good way to judge if something is pseudoscience is if the therapists subreddit is really excited about it, it's most likely junk science.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

A really good way to judge if something is pseudoscience is if the therapists subreddit is really excited about it, it's most likely junk science.

That subreddit is insanely incompetent and if you take the opposite of the prevailing opinion as truth...you'd do okay.

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

Damn, I missed the nerd talk.

 

[Sanman]

I think that was like 5 years ago. The gender of poster's is hard to know for sure (obviously), and I certainly don't get any "good ole boys" vibes here. I never really did other than a handful a veteran posters that I know are male and quite vocal and usually very science-based. But never like conversative/alt-right/misogynistic stuff.

I have posted semi-regularly for many years and am pretty vocally Catholic. But I hope that's not a "good ole boys" thing?

I mean, I got yelled at by a relatively new poster for making an inside joke that they misinterpreted as sexist at one point. I feel like those arguments are more about what people's personal level of comfort with certain things and the purpose of this board. Some feel it should be a "professional" board where everything is taken very seriously and no one should ever be offended. I, personally, disagree with that line of thinking. If it was going to be that, I would not need a pseudonym. This format allows for a lot more candor than many professional venues for that reason alone, despite the fact that some of us know each other in real life.

 

[WisNeuro]

I mean, I got yelled at by a relatively new poster for making an inside joke that they misinterpreted as sexist at one point. I feel like those arguments are more about what people's personal level of comfort with certain things and the purpose of this board. Some feel it should be a "professional" board where everything is taken very seriously and no one should ever be offended. I, personally, disagree with that line of thinking. If it was going to be that, I would not need a pseudonym. This format allows for a lot more candor than many professional venues for that reason alone, despite the fact that some of us know each other in real life.

That's just your male white privilege talking

 

[Sanman]

Damn, I missed the nerd talk.

There you go. Hope you feel included

 

[Sanman]

That's just your male white privilege talking

If anyone has come to terms with their white privilege, it is me.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

If anyone has come to terms with their white privilege, it is me.

This board gives me hope for the profession, honestly. If we can laugh, we can make it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I mean, I got yelled at by a relatively new poster for making an inside joke that they misinterpreted as sexist at one point. I feel like those arguments are more about what people's personal level of comfort with certain things and the purpose of this board. Some feel it should be a "professional" board where everything is taken very seriously and no one should ever be offended. I, personally, disagree with that line of thinking. If it was going to be that, I would not need a pseudonym. This format allows for a lot more candor than many professional venues for that reason alone, despite the fact that some of us know each other in real life.

I can see why some people link humor with oppression as it is obviously a tool of disparaging an underclass from a power stance, but it is also the opposite in that humor pokes at the ridiculousness of power structures that are based on arbitrary and inaccurate beliefs. Is it okay to mock the people that are not capable of seeing the difference? Also, I would think most humor is not connected to the social or political structure and is more about social play and maintaining and enjoying social interactions with fellow primates. We aren’t the only primates that enjoy a good laugh after all.

 

[Sanman]

I can see why some people link humor with oppression as it is obviously a tool of disparaging an underclass from a power stance, but it is also the opposite in that humor pokes at the ridiculousness of power structures that are based on arbitrary and inaccurate beliefs. Is it okay to mock the people that are not capable of seeing the difference? Also, I would think most humor is not connected to the social or political structure and is more about social play and maintaining and enjoying social interactions with fellow primates. We aren’t the only primates that enjoy a good laugh after all.

Absolutely, the problem with applying meaning to statements on the internet is having no idea about a person's true identity, motives, or the tone of language. This leads to a lot ambiguity and misinterpretation. That why appointing oneself as the language or social police never works. Sometimes we all need to breathe and give our fellow humans a little latitude.

 

[tr]

Absolutely, the problem with applying meaning to statements on the internet is having no idea about a person's true identity, motives, or the tone of language. This leads to a lot ambiguity and misinterpretation.

Honestly I feel like this happens so much even in face to face interactions.

I have a therapist eval that I hand to patients at end session and occasionally we'll have had a session that I thought went well, but then I see they dinged me on the eval.

I'll be like, "Looks like I might have missed the mark on empathy today, can you tell me more about how today's session felt for you?" And invariably there will be some comment or gesture that I meant as supportive, but was taken very differently by the patient. It's always so good to get it out on the table and iron out the misunderstandings, and it invariably improves the therapeutic relationship. But it just makes me realize how many of these miscommunications must be flying over my head in everyday interactions.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I can see why some people link humor with oppression as it is obviously a tool of disparaging an underclass from a power stance, but it is also the opposite in that humor pokes at the ridiculousness of power structures that are based on arbitrary and inaccurate beliefs. Is it okay to mock the people that are not capable of seeing the difference? Also, I would think most humor is not connected to the social or political structure and is more about social play and maintaining and enjoying social interactions with fellow primates. We aren’t the only primates that enjoy a good laugh after all.

The Jester is the only one allowed to mock The King and humor tends to be a very effective weapon against petty tyranny.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I check in once a week and this thread keeps going in surprising directions with an occasional pit stop at the original topic.

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

FWIW, I do worry we have a "good ol' posters" club wherein we already have a general leaning on most topics on this board and its hard for other opinions ((obviously, wrong ones ) to get a foothold (especially, pseudoscience and fad therapies [found a way to connect it to the original post]).

 

[PsychSupreme]

IFS, somatic experiencing, polyvagal hypotheses, "C-PTSD," "attachment trauma," EMDR, and the cult of Bessel van Der Kolk have long overtaken online trauma discourse. In the Reddit sub r/therapists, it is tantamount to anathema to raise a skeptical point about any of these points of view. The threads over there are largely being flooded by well-meaning but scientifically uninformed therapists and even patients (even though that sub expressly forbids them in the rules) doting on these topics using anecdotes of how "transformative" and "innovative" and "validating" they are. It's maddening. It's so bad that I saw a user (who I know happens to be a PhD trauma scientist whose publication record, internship, and postdoc all center around trauma disorders) cite a dozen papers to demonstrate the weakness of C-PTSD as a construct (and IFS as a treatment model) and they got cratered with downvotes and called "farcical." I've also seen people properly explain the problems with BvDK's claims in his book (which shall not be named!) and get similarly cratered. It seems like the field is destined to revisit trauma in problematic ways every so many generations. First it was the psychoanalysts claiming everything stemmed from childhood, then the attachment theory folks hopped in once behaviorism and cognitivism began taking over (though tbf attachment theory at least has some empirical validity in some limited ways), then came the Satanic Panic, and now here we are again. I look forward to the diastole of this current moment, and wonder what the next wave will look like when it inevitably returns again.

 

[futureapppsy2]

A while back, some women posters noted that they stopped posting or were posting less often because they felt like there was a certain vibe of a "good ol' boys" club.

Also, tr, I had no idea that you were a woman. I agree that it's the avatar, lol (not that I can talk, of course).

Roger obliterates gender lines!

 

[PsychSupreme]

While I’m ranting (now hours after my previous comment), have you all seen the news of how non-randomized small-N trials among treatment-resistant patients have proven that psychedelics will CURE PTSD? 🙄

 

[ClinicalABA]

...I thought you were 48 or something.

You youngsters can only dream of being a Gen Xer, with all the coolness associated with such an honor!

 

[Shiori]

While I’m ranting (now hours after my previous comment), have you all seen the news of how non-randomized small-N trials among treatment-resistant patients have proven that psychedelics will CURE PTSD? 🙄

I just had a spouse request them for their partner. I have had an uptick in spouses asking me to connect their significant others to either drugs or hot yoga.

 

[cara susanna]

IFS, somatic experiencing, polyvagal hypotheses, "C-PTSD," "attachment trauma," EMDR, and the cult of Bessel van Der Kolk have long overtaken online trauma discourse. In the Reddit sub r/therapists, it is tantamount to anathema to raise a skeptical point about any of these points of view. The threads over there are largely being flooded by well-meaning but scientifically uninformed therapists and even patients (even though that sub expressly forbids them in the rules) doting on these topics using anecdotes of how "transformative" and "innovative" and "validating" they are. It's maddening. It's so bad that I saw a user (who I know happens to be a PhD trauma scientist whose publication record, internship, and postdoc all center around trauma disorders) cite a dozen papers to demonstrate the weakness of C-PTSD as a construct (and IFS as a treatment model) and they got cratered with downvotes and called "farcical." I've also seen people properly explain the problems with BvDK's claims in his book (which shall not be named!) and get similarly cratered. It seems like the field is destined to revisit trauma in problematic ways every so many generations. First it was the psychoanalysts claiming everything stemmed from childhood, then the attachment theory folks hopped in once behaviorism and cognitivism began taking over (though tbf attachment theory at least has some empirical validity in some limited ways), then came the Satanic Panic, and now here we are again. I look forward to the diastole of this current moment, and wonder what the next wave will look like when it inevitably returns again.

I think I've seen you on r/therapists. I figured that you were an SDNer!

Honestly, I'm finding the non-therapists more problematic than the therapists. The non-therapists come in and basically try to amplify their anecdotal evidence of "well, x didn't work for me and y did, so x sucks." And they tend to be very reactive to feedback from professionals because it's all very personal for them and they feel like they're being invalidated, when for us it's just "shop talk." And the "I feel sorry for your patients / I hope you don't talk to patients this way" abounds (like, you really think I talk to my patients like I'm writing Reddit comments?) Or like a therapist posts about a situation and their worries about how they handled it, or some sort of legitimate question, and someone who isn't a therapist says "you clearly shouldn't be working with x population!" I'm glad r/therapists deletes their posts but the damage is usually done before that.

Like someone on another psychology-related sub just had a huge argument with me about a hot topic in trauma (guess which one) and it turned out they weren't even a professional themselves, but someone who had been in trauma treatment. They had read research papers, of course. Still, I've also read papers about things I've been in medical treatment for and you don't see me arguing with people in that healthcare field and acting like I know more than they do.

 

[PsychSupreme]

I think I've seen you on r/therapists. I figured that you were an SDNer!

Honestly, I'm finding the non-therapists more problematic than the therapists. The non-therapists come in and basically try to amplify their anecdotal evidence of "well, x didn't work for me and y did, so x sucks." And they tend to be very reactive to feedback from professionals because it's all very personal for them and they feel like they're being invalidated, when for us it's just "shop talk." And the "I feel sorry for your patients / I hope you don't talk to patients this way" abounds (like, you really think I talk to my patients like I'm writing Reddit comments?) Or like a therapist posts about a situation and their worries about how they handled it, or some sort of legitimate question, and someone who isn't a therapist says "you clearly shouldn't be working with x population!" I'm glad r/therapists deletes their posts but the damage is usually done before that.

Like someone on another psychology-related sub just had a huge argument with me about a hot topic in trauma (guess which one) and it turned out they weren't even a professional themselves, but someone who had been in trauma treatment. They had read research papers, of course. Still, I've also read papers about things I've been in medical treatment for and you don't see me arguing with people in that healthcare field and acting like I know more than they do.

You are likely referring to r/askpsychology, no? If so, then you and I are acquainted on Reddit and likely know each others’ usernames. I’m happy to doxx my username in a PM, if you’re interested (just to confirm). It’s extremely frustrating to see graduate-level licensed professionals engaging in the kind of discourse they do over there, and, I agree, frustrating when people without any formal education start stating opinions on ethical and empirical questions that do not involve understanding the subjective patient experience.

 

[futureapppsy2]

IFS, somatic experiencing, polyvagal hypotheses, "C-PTSD," "attachment trauma," EMDR, and the cult of Bessel van Der Kolk have long overtaken online trauma discourse. In the Reddit sub r/therapists, it is tantamount to anathema to raise a skeptical point about any of these points of view. The threads over there are largely being flooded by well-meaning but scientifically uninformed therapists and even patients (even though that sub expressly forbids them in the rules) doting on these topics using anecdotes of how "transformative" and "innovative" and "validating" they are. It's maddening. It's so bad that I saw a user (who I know happens to be a PhD trauma scientist whose publication record, internship, and postdoc all center around trauma disorders) cite a dozen papers to demonstrate the weakness of C-PTSD as a construct (and IFS as a treatment model) and they got cratered with downvotes and called "farcical." I've also seen people properly explain the problems with BvDK's claims in his book (which shall not be named!) and get similarly cratered. It seems like the field is destined to revisit trauma in problematic ways every so many generations. First it was the psychoanalysts claiming everything stemmed from childhood, then the attachment theory folks hopped in once behaviorism and cognitivism began taking over (though tbf attachment theory at least has some empirical validity in some limited ways), then came the Satanic Panic, and now here we are again. I look forward to the diastole of this current moment, and wonder what the next wave will look like when it inevitably returns again.

Omg did you see that r/ therapists post where the OP said that they didn’t know basic counseling skills but were “trauma informed” and wanted to learn “EMDR and IPF”? (I only lurk in therapy subreddits and post mostly in popculture ones , which are surprisingly open to EBP! I’ve never gotten downvoted for posting actual psychological science there, oddly).

 

[PsychSupreme]

Omg did you see that r/ therapists post where the OP said that they didn’t know basic counseling skills but were “trauma informed” and wanted to learn “EMDR and IPF”? (I only lurk in therapy subreddits and post mostly in popculture ones , which are surprisingly open to EBP! I’ve never gotten downvoted for posting actual psychological science there, oddly).

I missed that post. I try to stay away from there most of the time, but sometimes I see a juicy post I just can’t help but look at or engage with. I’ve personally not had good responses to being skeptical of any of the stuff that’s within the larger trauma zeitgeist (somatic stuff, body woo [thanks, BvDK], whacky-ass therapies like IFS and parts-work, “everything is dissociation”). On the few occasions where my upvote : downvote ratio is positive, it’s always far overshadowed by the un-skeptical comments with hundreds to the good in the upvote ratio. I’m also quite alarmed by what I think is a growing trend toward revitalization of psychoanalysis and Jungian analysis, and a growing number of people who advance the argument that “psychology is informed by science, but also by many other epistemological systems” (usually as a justification for why they are fans of unfalsifiable stuff like psychoanalysis or other whacky stuff). I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that the accrediting boards for non-psychologist clinicians need to push for better science literacy in their standards, and need to add in some basic neuroscience coursework. Literally one course on neuroscience would help so many people see how bonkers bilateral stimulation and somatic memory hypotheses are.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I missed that post. I try to stay away from there most of the time, but sometimes I see a juicy post I just can’t help but look at or engage with. I’ve personally not had good responses to being skeptical of any of the stuff that’s within the larger trauma zeitgeist (somatic stuff, body woo [thanks, BvDK], whacky-ass therapies like IFS and parts-work, “everything is dissociation”). On the few occasions where my upvoteownvote ratio is positive, it’s always far overshadowed by the un-skeptical comments with hundreds to the good in the upvote ratio. I’m also quite alarmed by what I think is a growing trend toward revitalization of psychoanalysis and Jungian analysis, and a growing number of people who advance the argument that “psychology is informed by science, but also by many other epistemological systems” (usually as a justification for why they are fans of unfalsifiable stuff like psychoanalysis or other whacky stuff). I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that the accrediting boards for non-psychologist clinicians need to push for better science literacy in their standards, and need to add in some basic neuroscience coursework. Literally one course on neuroscience would help so many people see how bonkers bilateral stimulation and somatic memory hypotheses are.

I'd agree on the last part, but there's sadly a good number of psychologists who shill EMDR as well, so it's not just a masters-level issue (I suspect this has to do with both $$$$ and with the idea that something allegedly physiological sounds "more science-y" and "less stigmatizing", even if it's clearly BS if you actually look at the underlying science behind it).

 

[WisNeuro]

Remember, this is also the subreddit where people talk about having 20 billable hours is a "busy week."