[wetwater]

>Yes, the standards are a lot less rigorous and reproducability is worse than in the "hard sciences", but at least they are trying to get some kind of objective, reproducable result in the first place.

This is a major red flag. This whole field is reeling under Credibility crisis.

People should be exposed to medical treatments which are tried , tested aproved and regulated. Which this field cant be further from yet they have the authority to advice people as under pretext of psycologists and therapists.

There should be even more regulation for psycologists and therapists , just like there is approval process for vaccines . Howcome we are allowing so many people to be exposed to medical treatments which have barely any regulation and no reproducablity.

[xg15]

That's correct and I agree that a lot more should be done. I'm just saying that right now, there is no better option. Also, if therapy really had no significant positive results (in aggregate!) I think we'd hear more about that from affected patients. Instead, you can find lots of accounts from people who said that therapy has greatly improved their lives.

(This is different from the horrible transgressions of the 19th and 2/3rds of the 20th century where the "results" were mostly how the patients appeared to others but not how they felt themselves - if you bothered to see them as humans at all)