Trial By Error: My Brief Encounter with Professor Crawley

MEMarge said:
@Barry don't worry I'm not proposing anything militant I just think he may be interested in hearing some of the science-based information eg bullet points from IOM.
Click to expand...
In case anyone is confused by your reference to me here. I did briefly post in response to @Estherbot, gently cautioning re doing nothing other than note the connection. I saw on the website his mention of CBT possibly relates mainly to secondary coping strategy support, which would be fine, though I was very pressed for time when I looked. But I also then saw he seems to recommend GET, at which point I deleted my comment.

My gut feeling is to first consider if he might be more a bewitched disciple than out and out baddy. If that were the case then far better if he could become more enlightened; that might be a very optimistic long shot. But EC is a very bewitching influence I suspect, and I would be very surprised if a number of her followers weren't decent but misguided.
 
@Barry Most patients know not to send angry emails, texts or make the wrong type of phone call when tired & emotional. We all have had personal experiences with the people around us.

The Virology Paine was put right on his errors by David himself & other correspondents. Unlikely he'll be back for more.

CBT/GET practitioners are obviously getting worried with the current scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
If you don't put the effort in to properly identify and understand what the problem actually is, and its nuances, then you will probably go off on a tangent and try solving the wrong problem, then wonder why it didn't work out properly.
Click to expand...

The problem with Crawley is she doesn't understand what the problem is, she goes of on a tangent, but them claims to have solved the problem and doesn't grasp that it has gone wrong.
 
Esther said:
I agree that it's often better to start by criticising people in a gentle way, and to try to be as helpful as possible. I might try to do that regardless of status.
Click to expand...

Adrian said:
I do think some people (including myself) think different amounts of criticism should be given according to the status of the person.
Click to expand...

In my area questions were asked in a mean, harsh way. Actually, the questions were meant to show "your results are crap, p*** off". PhD students called it the "shark tank", and in order to be well prepared we thought and asked the wildest questions. Still, it is true that PhD students were treated "more softly" compared to postdocs or professors.

It's obvious why people react uncomfortably when being asked about their accusations publicly. But for me, it would be mature to answer appropriately.

Censure is a well-known means to shut out certain opinions, and repeating something over and over again will raise the possibility to cement it as truth, no matter the facts.

It's unsettling to me.
 
Barry said:
I think some psychiatrists have a wholly different perception of what science really is, like a closed system of their own definition (yes, I realise that is more akin to religion :rolleyes:).
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the problem started when psychology wanted to become a "natural science". They did - and still do - good field science (e.g. cognitive and behavioral psychology).

Honestly, I am often reminded of religion, too, when it comes to this topic.
 
I would agree that "psychology people" may live in their own reality; it's something I thought after having discussed with people who accept psychological theories (and more) as reality. It seems to me they think people who like science are not very "developed", e.g. spritually; not understanding the human being and its higher purpose. For me, this assumption feels a little arrogant, but well... Maybe they would say the same about me, who knows.

It reminded me of certain religious groups I know very well from my past. It's very difficult. It's two worlds clashing with each other.

Everything that would be needed to overcome this is respect; in my opinion.
 
Liv aka Mrs Sowester said:
It's a Cornish phrase that is less prompt than it sounds, it means when he get's round to it.
Click to expand...

I remember my husband telling me years ago that him and his British colleagues used to wind up an American colleague at work. They would tell him that they would do something "presently". To a Brit, of course, that means at some indefinite time in the future. But to an American, apparently, doing something "presently" means you will do something immediately. So this guy would expect people to leap into action but they just sat there and continued with what they were doing, and it used to drive him nuts. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom