IiME letter to Mark Baker (NICE) re: CBT & GET as recommended treatments

[Alvin]

I can only imagine that the warped logic is that if the results are significant enough then bias doesn't matter. As if they think the bias is down in the noise or something?

Some non scientific people don't understand biases, fallibility of memory or non objective measures. They go by their intuition of right and wrong. Then again he might just be trolling.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

I can't work out if it is just someone too far from reality to be bothered with, or if this is actually a real insight into the alien world of psychiatric trialling.

My guess is the former @Barry, I don't think Reddit is the place psychiatric researchers go to discuss trials - maybe they'd go there for interesting case study source material (have you seen some of those sub-reddits??)!

Edited to remove n't

 

[Barry]

Non scientific people don't understand biases, fallibility of memory or non objective measures. They go by their intuition of right and wrong. Then again he might just be trolling.

Yes, I did wonder if it is just a wind up.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I think what he meant was:

Biased self reporting shouldn't be invoked easily, especially if the results are very clear.

Clearly this person lives in cloud cuckoo land. Where there is room for subjective bias in science there will always be as much bias as those involved think they will get away with. It is called human nature. Sometimes even called psychology. Anyone who does not know this about science was born yesterday.

And in this case the patients were told to bias their reporting. That is what CBT is supposed to do - bias your thoughts and reports (behaviour).

Doh!!

 

[chrisb]

Non scientific people don't understand biases, fallibility of memory or non objective measures.

I wonder whether there might not be a little bias in that assessment, and what attempt has been made to refute the conjecture.

 

[Alvin]

I wonder whether there might not be a little bias in that assessment, and what attempt has been made to refute the conjecture.

I was referring to that person and not a global statement but i will edit

 

[Barry]

Biased self reporting shouldn't be invoked easily, especially if the results are very clear.

Sorry @Jonathan Edwards but I think I'm being a bit dense here. I understand all your words, but seem to be losing something in how they go together .

Edit: Sorry, more accurate to say your one word invoke, which still doesn't clarify things for me in this context.

 

[large donner]

The problem is the kind of logic that says:

"Just cos you cant prove something scientifically doesn't mean it don't work".

Usually there is already a belief in the thing in the first place, like homeopathy or faith healing, or psychic mediums or cosmic ordering or positive thinking or reiki etc etc.

Such people usually get annoyed when such things are put to the test and they don't work in the test. When they are unable to put up logical reasoning for or against how the trial was conducted you are just dealing with believers from start to finish.

They then often fall back on new age words like, wellness etc if they are asked to explain their claims.

So boring!!

 

[Valentijn]

I finished writing a post there (joined Reddit specially to do so), and then saw the above comment. Really makes me realise what we are up against.

He does remind me very much of a troll that many of us encountered elsewhere. He would superficially base his arguments on science, but without apparent understanding of trial methodology, and a steadfast refusal to distinguish good methodology from poor methodology.

He had formed a biased view of ME/CFS during the XMRV saga, and we became his poster-child for crazy patients messing up science, mentioned occasionally in that context in his blog. Instead of later admitting that anything ME/CFS patients say about science could ever be correct, he would keep repeating the spin over and over.

There's absolutely no chance he'll come to his senses, but it's decent practice for dissecting spin. And someone else might come along and read it, and learn something.

 

[Alvin]

They then often fall back on new age words like, wellness etc if they are asked to explain their claims.

This is the internet age, they just google it and post a "study" done by a quack

 

[Andy]

There's absolutely no chance he'll come to his senses, but it's decent practice for dissecting spin. And someone else might come along and read it, and learn something.

From what I've seen of that user, exactly this. They will never be convinced by any counter argument put forward, so engaging with them more becomes for the benefit of anybody else reading the exchange .who is either undecided or who is of the same mind set but is more open to logic.

 

[large donner]

This is the internet age, they just google it and post a "study" done by a quack

Yes usually its the inability to understand the difference between "science" and observing whether the the scientific method was followed.

If its been done by scientists, "its science Bro".

 

[Barry]

From what I've seen of that user, exactly this. They will never be convinced by any counter argument put forward, so engaging with them more becomes for the benefit of anybody else reading the exchange .who is either undecided or who is of the same mind set but is more open to logic.

As @Valentijn points out, it's a useful way to possibly clarify things for others.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Sorry @Jonathan Edwards but I think I'm being a bit dense here. I understand all your words, but seem to be losing something in how they go together .

Edit: Sorry, more accurate to say your one word invoke, which still doesn't clarify things for me in this context.

I think he is saying that the results of PACE should not be easily dismissed on the grounds that the reporting was biased - because the results were clear cut.

I agree there is no logic there. I was trying to sort out the fact that his original sentence does not even make sense.

Maybe it was me being dense.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

There's absolutely no chance he'll come to his senses, but it's decent practice for dissecting spin. And someone else might come along and read it, and learn something.

Yes, I was impressed by your parrying to the left and thrusting to the body there. The rapier against the bludgeon - always a pleasure to watch.

 

[Barry]

I think he is saying that the results of PACE should not be easily dismissed on the grounds that the reporting was biased - because the results were clear cut.

I agree there is no logic there. I was trying to sort out the fact that his original sentence does not even make sense.

Maybe it was me being dense.

No, I think it is rational people trying to fathom the irrational.

 

[Graham]

When I was teaching, I would regularly put up some sort of claim as a poster in the classroom, then wait for the squeals of protest.

"9 out of 10 people here say that Maths is the best subject."

At first they would claim that I was making it up etc., but after a little while they would start asking real questions, like, "How many people did you ask?" - 10, of course. "Who did you ask?" - well, there were 8 of us teachers in the maths department, and a couple of pupils came to ask for some help with their homework. You get the picture.

But the point is that the kids pretty soon homed in on the faults, and knew it was rubbish. Why is it that so few adults seem capable of understanding that? Why is it that beliefs become so entrenched that they cannot question the evidence?

Anyone with a solution to this and to other deep philosophical questions, please write a book. A cheap one that we can afford to give away to idiots.

 

[Alvin]

When I was teaching, I would regularly put up some sort of claim as a poster in the classroom, then wait for the squeals of protest.

"9 out of 10 people here say that Maths is the best subject."

At first they would claim that I was making it up etc., but after a little while they would start asking real questions, like, "How many people did you ask?" - 10, of course. "Who did you ask?" - well, there were 8 of us teachers in the maths department, and a couple of pupils came to ask for some help with their homework. You get the picture.

But the point is that the kids pretty soon homed in on the faults, and knew it was rubbish. Why is it that so few adults seem capable of understanding that? Why is it that beliefs become so entrenched that they cannot question the evidence?

Critical thinking is implicitly discouraged, sit and do your work and absorb this and regurgitate on the test. Do up to two decades of this.

Anyone with a solution to this and to other deep philosophical questions, please write a book. A cheap one that we can afford to give away to idiots.

I can't, cognitive dysfunction (not kidding on either count)

 

[Graham]

Critical thinking is implicitly discouraged

This is side-stepping the issue a bit, but to be honest the rot started with the introduction of the National Curriculum. Suddenly instead of just having targets (GCSEs, A-level etc.), every step of the way was specified, and it was a knowledge/skill based syllabus. I could ignore it to an extent, being an established teacher, and continue to encourage kids to challenge my statements, but for newer staff, it was all they had known. I gather Scotland and Wales have a less prescriptive curriculum where the aim is to produce useful thinkers.

 

[chrisb]

Why is it that so few adults seem capable of understanding that? Why is it that beliefs become so entrenched that they cannot question the evidence?

Perhaps because it is not in the interests of the "establishment" to have an informed population able to make up their own minds and question decisions. It is only the would be elite who need such an education.

My grandfathers view, learned in the trenches, was: "It's a free country. You're free to do as you're told."