I think that "evidence-based bandwagon" is a perfectly marvellous phrase, but probably not for the reasons that Michael Britt's psychoanalyst friend thinks. The phrase "evidence-based" has, in many ways, outlived its usefulness because it has started to be picked up and (mis-)used by the very "alt" groups that it was intended to exclude (much the way the term "science" has been picked up by creationists). To be clear, I am NOT saying that evidence itself is useless. Quite the contrary. The problem is that the term "evidence" has become so distorted and vague (in the public mind) that it no longer distinguishes between the different practices it was supposed to when it was invoked in the phrase "evidence-based" back in the 1990s. You might respond, "Then we should reclaim it, clarify it, and save it from its abusers!" You could do that, except, as we have seen in the case of "creation science," you are likely to be diverted into a long, futile debate over the "proper" meanings of particular words, instead of making your primary case in the main area of contention.
In short, adopting your opponent's high-status vocabulary and then twisting it to your own purposes is an often successful diversionary tactic that robs your opponent of a key rhetorical advantage and, probably more important, provides you with the luxury of time -- sometimes LOTS of time -- while your opponent struggles to make (and keep the public's interest in) complex, technical, verbal distinctions while you go along your merry way, say, including your "alt" ideas in school curricula, etc. I will (once again) recommend Henry Frankfurt's little philosophical treatise _On Bullshit_ (1986; reprinted in book form by Princeton U., 2005), in which he makes what, to my mind, is one of the most important observations about political debate of the past century: "The bullshitter may not deceive us... about the facts.... What he does necessarily deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to." (2005, p. 54). Do not be diverted into verbal disputes with those who do not share your epistemological values. Keep your eye on the ball and keep making your case USING those epistemological values, not debating them. That is, "If you concede that the method you propose cannot be shown to reliably relieve the very symptoms that drove your client to come to you in the first place (whatever incidental 'existential' side-benefits you may claim it provides), then we are left with no basis on which to recommend that others suffering from the same symptoms should seek out the same form of treatment." Rhetorically, Chris ....... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo On 2013-04-12, at 10:39 AM, "Lilienfeld, Scott O" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike et al....don't have much time today (two graduate student defenses, > plus meetings....), but see the following reference for a brief history of > the (evidence-based practice) EBP concept as applied to clinical psychology > and allied fields: > > Spring, B. (2007). Evidence-based practice in clinical psychology: What it > is; why it matters; what you need to know. Journal of Clinical Psychology, > 63, 611-631. > > Not sure who coined the term "evidence-based," but the concept gained > traction in medicine with the writings of David Sackett and others in the > 1990s: > > Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., & Haynes, R. B., & > Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it > isn't. British Medical Journal, 312, 71-72. > > There's no single authority for determining which treatments are or are not > "evidence-based." Different groups within different fields (e.g., clinical > psychology, medicine, social work) have developed their own criteria. Within > psychology, the best known criteria and list of treatments are those > developed by Division 12 (Society of Clinical Psychology) for empirically > supported (initially called empirically validated) treatments in the 1990s. > These criteria and the list continued to be updated periodically, and other > groups (such as APA Division 53, Child and Adolescent Psychology) have their > own criteria as well. Moreover, empirically supported treatments are only > one operationalization among many of the research prong of EBP within > psychotherapy; the American Psychiatric Association has developed its own > (much decried) practice guidelines, and our own APA is now working > (belatedly) on doing the same. > > Hope some of this helps; back in touch this weekend if more info. if needed. > ...Scott > > > Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Psychology, Room 473 > Emory University > 36 Eagle Row > Atlanta, Georgia 30322 > [email protected]; 404-727-1125 > > The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and > his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and > his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows > which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he > does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him - he > is always doing both. > > - Zen Buddhist text > (slightly modified) > > >> >> ------- Original Message -------- >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:37:38 -0700, Michael Britt wrote: >> Not long ago I interviewed a psychoanalyst/author about the concepts >> of transference, countertransference and dream interpretation and one >> blog commenter almost right away insisted that psychoanalysis was not >> "evidence based". What struck me about the comment (and which I'm >> thinking of focusing on in an upcoming episode), is the knee-jerk >> reaction of "Well, it has to be evidence-based!" It's almost become a >> mantra. >> >> Recently we've all become even more focused of the need to strengthen >> our research techniques, but we all know that all our approaches have their >> strengths and weaknesses. We know that evidence "points toward a >> conclusion" >> and the more evidence that so the better. So I'm wondering: when does >> any technique get the "evidence-based" stamp of approval? Certainly, >> some of our techniques have a strong base of evidence in support of >> their effectiveness (say, systematic desensitization for example) but >> what does it take to get the evidence-based "badge"? For that matter, where >> did the term come from? >> >> Also, I'm wondering if there aren't politics involved here. It would >> be interesting if so-called "evidence-based" techniques also happen to >> be the short-term, less expensive ones that also happen to be covered by >> insurance.... >> >> Feedback welcome. >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe click here: >> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f >> 69&n=T&l=tips&o=24970 or send a blank email to >> leave-24970-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69@fsulist.frostburg.e >> du > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=24972 > or send a blank email to > leave-24972-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments). > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=24973 > or send a blank email to > leave-24973-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24976 or send a blank email to leave-24976-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
