At 11:00 AM -0500 3/2/06, Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
Hi All: Thanks much for the kind words and for posting this letter to the list, Stephen. As for the claim regarding short-term psychodynamic treatments, several recent meta-analyses have shown promising research support for several disorders, including depression. I don't find the evidence as convincing or as extensive as that for several other treatments, particularly behavioral and cognitive-behavioral (which is why I wrote "perhaps"), but I do think that we consider it carefully. My own hypothesis is that these treatments do often work largely because they adventitiously incorporate behavioral techniques, but that possibility requires testing using dismantling techniques.
A good point, Scott, but I'm not sure that the behavior is really 'adventitious'. Even psychodynamic psychotherapists are behaving organisms, and I'd expect their behavior (treatment practices in this case) to be shaped by their outcomes. Of course, their behavior of _reporting_ what they do is under the control of a different set of reinforcement contingencies, and should not be expected to completely correspond to their actual treatment practices.
-- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
