= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CronoDAS comments on [Link] Social interventions gone wrong - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (75)
Yeah, I noticed that as well.
In fact, I had updated in that direction by about halfway through the exercise (based on weak one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others evidence), and on that exact basis, decided that of 5, 6, 7, and 8, only #7 was likely to help.
Probably one-on-one relationships are just higher-quality inputs. One person interacting with one other person can pay a lot of attention to subtle cues and signs of misunderstanding (and thus adjust the interaction appropriately) in ways that we haven't figured out how to automate yet.
In other words, it works for the same reason that we don't have something that can reliably pass the Turing test over a long period of time yet: manipulating people is complicated, and humans are optimized to do that exact task.
I remember reading somewhere (does anyone remember where?) that while there's little evidence for one school of psychological or psychiatric therapy over another, there is strong evidence that spending a lot of time with an intelligent, sympathetic listener is good for you.
I suppose this means I should look into private lessons/tutors for skills I want to learn, whenever I can afford them.
Me too. I've also read that teenage girls are as effective as professionally trained therapists... and even that you might not need a human listener at all to get the benefits; just keeping a diary helps.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2j/schools_proliferating_without_evidence/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/94t/meta_analysis_of_writing_therapy/ seem relevant.
If you want more detailed refs including the claim that the particular school matters much less than the quality of the therapist (with an honorable exception for CBT), http://counsellingbooks.com/bibliography/theory-and-research/general-and-comparative.html#LambertBergin_1994 http://counsellingbooks.com/bibliography/theory-and-research/general-and-comparative.html#BeutlerEtAl_1994 are relevant.
All kinds of therapists or just traditional psychoanalysts? The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy is supposed to have strong empirical support. I wouldn't be very surprised if it turned out that most of that support is critically flawed but I also wouldn't be surprised if the study you're referring to was behind the times.
Probably just traditional psychoanalysis. I mean, lying on the couch and discussing sexual topics, is there something a teenager wouldn't be able to do? On the other hand, rational thinking and proper behavior, that's like an exact opposite of being a teenager. :)
Dunno, it's just something that I remember hearing once. I couldn't find a source.
I did manage to come across the name for this effect: Dodo Bird Verdict.