Nature - News feature: Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem?, 2019, Tom Chivers

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02041-5

 

I wouldn't say it has a conflict of interest problem. I would say it has many. And a crisis of reliability. And a refusal to acknowledge it or change anything about it. And promoting the creep of pseudoscience within medicine by merely adorning a psychobabble hat, rather than the usual spiritual bonnet.

But examples like that are still shocking. It's basically no different than life coaches like Tony Robbins, pep rallies that use The Secret as source material. To reuse what Wessely unironically used: this is snake oil that has transcended the need for a bottle. The "treatment" is words, thoughts and beliefs. Immaterial, unquantifiable and infinitely interpretable. Does it work? Depends who you ask. And, no, you can't check so just trust us.

 

I think the fact of all these payments shows just how gullible and fatuous many large organisations are. Were I well enough I would offer to speak on the subject.

 

It's a good article. One thing that struck me was how much the TED talk look has influenced all modern day speaking, and how much it looks like something you'd see in tele-evangelism. Here is a problem that makes people in the audience unhappy; here is a simple solution presented by a confident, articulate speaker whose charisma hides the fact that might be scientifically dubious; here is the request for cash (albeit as a speaker fee rather than an outright request for donations).

 

If Maryanne gets the nomination, I am leaving this nation.

Would England take me back after a 410 year absence?

 

Williamson seems kooky but I'd take her over any of the psychosocial lot any day of the week. She at least seems to place some inherent value to human life. It's a different kind of kooky, at least it's benevolent in intent, rather than being entirely motivated by ideological self-interest and indifferent to its consequences.

I find it hard to argue that those involved in the psychosocial model are benevolent, even in the slightest. They have been consistently shown how disastrous their work is and they have every intention of promoting it to its full extent, perfectly content in bullying it through against hundreds of consistent legitimate complaints over decades and documented evidence that they are promoting a mass of warm, putrid air.

 

(not my own comment, & paraphrased)

the younger generations are depressed and anxious - but it's not because of social media - it's because previous generations have destroyed our environment, destroyed our living standards (0 hours contracts, poor wages, high debts, huge income disparity between the richest and the poorest), and created the climate emergency.

 

It also doesn't help that millions are "diagnosed" with anxiety and depression by merely answer 1-2 questions. The real "crisis of mental health" is that it's enormously inflated, by people with no health problems as well as by people like us who have dismissed health problems.

It's not as if the generation sandwiched between WWI and WWII had it easy and were free of worry, or any generation before then. It wasn't that long ago that medicine did not want anything to do with depression and GPs would systematically refuse anyone suspected of it, many still do. So obviously the rates today will be much higher compared to a time when no one bothered measuring it.

Both effects multiply and grossly exaggerate prevalence.

 

Great article. The journalist Tom Chivers, has previously written an excellent article on the Lightning process: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/inside-the-controversial-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue

 

The sub-headline and photo caption in the Guardian article incorrectly refers to Marianne Williamson as the "Democratic Nominee." She's a candidate for the Democratic nomination, not the nominee.

All you have to do to be a candidate is to meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements and then fill out an application (which is only required after you raise/spend $5,000).

To have any chance of winning, you also need to get on the ballot in all 50 states*, which is a lot less trivial.


[*Theoretically, you only need to be on the ballot in enough states to secure the Electoral College. Abraham Lincoln was not on the ballot in any Southern state in the election of 1860, yet he still won.]