{"title":"作为宗教的心理治疗","authors":"Stephen M. Adams","doi":"10.4088/PCC.V09N0212A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Psychotherapy as Religion, author William M. Epstein seeks to demonstrate that the entire field of psychotherapy is based upon unscientific concepts and has never been shown to effectively treat any mental disorder. Dr. Epstein, a professor of social work at the University of Nevada, reports that the basis of his premises are derived from reviewing randomized controlled trials that addressed effectiveness and were published within the past decade in either the American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, or the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. The introduction presents the author's conclusion that psychotherapy, while lacking in efficacy, is widely accepted in America because it is in concordance with the nation's “heroic individualism” and belief in personal responsibility for social ills. He argues that psychotherapy has taken on the role of social religion, and finds similarities with Christian Science. \n \nThe major portion of the book is devoted to criticism of individual studies and meta-analyses. Specific topics include depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, testing methodology, psychodynamic psychotherapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. In each chapter, the author identifies apparent limitations in every study he encounters. Many of his arguments appear articulate and well crafted, such as rejecting studies with high attrition rates or lack of an adequate comparison arm. In other instances, he discounts studies on the basis of the argument that psychologists have an inherent conflict of interest when evaluating the validity of their own field, and therefore might not be able to objectively report upon the patients they evaluate. \n \nThe author's use of complicated sentence structure and obscure vocabulary impairs the readability of the text. Likewise, redundant editorializing detracts from what would otherwise be a straightforward and logical presentation. The book may appeal most to those with an interest in evidence-based medicine and to those true believers in psychotherapy who enjoy having their faith challenged.","PeriodicalId":371004,"journal":{"name":"The Primary Care Companion To The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":"77 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychotherapy as Religion\",\"authors\":\"Stephen M. Adams\",\"doi\":\"10.4088/PCC.V09N0212A\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Psychotherapy as Religion, author William M. Epstein seeks to demonstrate that the entire field of psychotherapy is based upon unscientific concepts and has never been shown to effectively treat any mental disorder. Dr. Epstein, a professor of social work at the University of Nevada, reports that the basis of his premises are derived from reviewing randomized controlled trials that addressed effectiveness and were published within the past decade in either the American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, or the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. The introduction presents the author's conclusion that psychotherapy, while lacking in efficacy, is widely accepted in America because it is in concordance with the nation's “heroic individualism” and belief in personal responsibility for social ills. He argues that psychotherapy has taken on the role of social religion, and finds similarities with Christian Science. \\n \\nThe major portion of the book is devoted to criticism of individual studies and meta-analyses. Specific topics include depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, testing methodology, psychodynamic psychotherapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. In each chapter, the author identifies apparent limitations in every study he encounters. Many of his arguments appear articulate and well crafted, such as rejecting studies with high attrition rates or lack of an adequate comparison arm. In other instances, he discounts studies on the basis of the argument that psychologists have an inherent conflict of interest when evaluating the validity of their own field, and therefore might not be able to objectively report upon the patients they evaluate. \\n \\nThe author's use of complicated sentence structure and obscure vocabulary impairs the readability of the text. Likewise, redundant editorializing detracts from what would otherwise be a straightforward and logical presentation. The book may appeal most to those with an interest in evidence-based medicine and to those true believers in psychotherapy who enjoy having their faith challenged.\",\"PeriodicalId\":371004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Primary Care Companion To The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"77 1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Primary Care Companion To The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.V09N0212A\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Primary Care Companion To The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.V09N0212A","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
在《作为宗教的心理治疗》一书中,作者威廉·m·爱泼斯坦试图证明,整个心理治疗领域都是建立在不科学的概念基础上的,而且从未被证明能有效治疗任何精神障碍。爱泼斯坦博士是内华达大学(University of Nevada)的社会工作教授,他报告说,他的假设的基础来自于回顾了过去十年里发表在《美国精神病学杂志》(American Journal of Psychiatry)、《普通精神病学档案》(Archives of General Psychiatry)或《咨询与临床心理学杂志》(Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology)上的关于有效性的随机对照试验。引言部分提出了作者的结论,即心理治疗虽然缺乏疗效,但在美国被广泛接受,因为它符合美国的“英雄个人主义”和个人对社会弊病负责的信念。他认为心理治疗已经扮演了社会宗教的角色,并发现了与基督教科学的相似之处。这本书的主要部分是对个人研究和元分析的批评。具体的主题包括抑郁、焦虑、饮食失调、成瘾、测试方法、心理动力学心理治疗和认知行为治疗。在每一章中,作者都指出了他所遇到的每一项研究的明显局限性。他的许多论点似乎清晰而精心设计,例如拒绝高流失率或缺乏适当比较的研究。在另一些情况下,他认为心理学家在评估自己领域的有效性时存在固有的利益冲突,因此可能无法客观地报告他们评估的病人,因此他对这些研究不以为然。作者使用复杂的句子结构和晦涩的词汇,损害了文章的可读性。同样,多余的编辑也会减损原本应该是直接和合乎逻辑的陈述。这本书可能最吸引那些对循证医学感兴趣的人,以及那些喜欢自己的信仰受到挑战的心理治疗的真正信徒。
In Psychotherapy as Religion, author William M. Epstein seeks to demonstrate that the entire field of psychotherapy is based upon unscientific concepts and has never been shown to effectively treat any mental disorder. Dr. Epstein, a professor of social work at the University of Nevada, reports that the basis of his premises are derived from reviewing randomized controlled trials that addressed effectiveness and were published within the past decade in either the American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, or the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. The introduction presents the author's conclusion that psychotherapy, while lacking in efficacy, is widely accepted in America because it is in concordance with the nation's “heroic individualism” and belief in personal responsibility for social ills. He argues that psychotherapy has taken on the role of social religion, and finds similarities with Christian Science.
The major portion of the book is devoted to criticism of individual studies and meta-analyses. Specific topics include depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, testing methodology, psychodynamic psychotherapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. In each chapter, the author identifies apparent limitations in every study he encounters. Many of his arguments appear articulate and well crafted, such as rejecting studies with high attrition rates or lack of an adequate comparison arm. In other instances, he discounts studies on the basis of the argument that psychologists have an inherent conflict of interest when evaluating the validity of their own field, and therefore might not be able to objectively report upon the patients they evaluate.
The author's use of complicated sentence structure and obscure vocabulary impairs the readability of the text. Likewise, redundant editorializing detracts from what would otherwise be a straightforward and logical presentation. The book may appeal most to those with an interest in evidence-based medicine and to those true believers in psychotherapy who enjoy having their faith challenged.