Counselling, Criticism and Skepticism

I was interested to read the letters by Jim Ring and Felicity Goodyear-Smith to my article with the above title [NZ Skeptic 47].

Jim reiterates his view that the Cambridge-Sumerville study (which finished in 1978) is the only large-scale long-term study of counselling which can reasonably be regarded as good science. To use one study to evaluate a field on the basis of how it was practised 20 years ago and ignore the large number of books and specialist journals (e.g. Psychotherapy, Evidenced-based Mental Health) which are devoted to it seems just a tad closed minded.

Felicity may be surprised to know that I agree with most of what she says. Yes, if people have family and friends they can talk about their problems with, then do that before spending money on a psychotherapist or counsellor. Yes, I agree that reworking the past, unless it is actively intruding into the present, is a waste of time and may be harmful. Her comments on feminist social science however confuse me, since I was not aware I was advocating a feminist stand.

Felicity says preferred psychological interventions should be those shown to be effective and safe by controlled outcome studies. Again, “yes”.

However I wonder whether medical practitioners (like Felicity, and I think Jim is also a medic) who criticise counsellors and psychotherapists for lack of a scientific basis might be pots calling the kettle black. Dr Ian Chambers (director of the UK Cochrane Centre) is quoted in the British Medical Journal (6 June 1998) as stating that more than 60% of orthodox treatments (in medicine) have not been scientifically proved. This is the reason that there is now a strong movement in medicine for “science-based medicine”, just as there is a movement within counselling and psychotherapy for “science-based practice”. Both, I believe, should be applauded.

Gordon Hewitt

Skeptical about OOS

I’m sure that I am not the only reader puzzled by the simplistic dismissal of OOS by your medical commentators over the years. However, I’ve only now found time to put abused finger to keyboard. I have no intention of getting into a technical discussion of the definition of a disease or an injury, but I take exception to the tone of Neil McKenzie’s Skepsis column [NZ Skeptic 48]. This column suggests that the lack of a “dose response” implies the lack of an OOS problem.

There are, presumably, numerous factors, in addition to time spent typing, playing an instrument, or working on a production line, that would affect the degree of discomfort. The lack of a simple “dose response” seems to me quite unsurprising. The step from “lack of dose response” to “lack of a problem” is akin to arguing that sufferers of migraines, asthma, or cancer are imagining their symptoms until the exact mechanism is understood. I see ironic parallels between McKenzie’s assertions and the arguments of anti-evolutionists. The mechanism is not understood, therefore it doesn’t happen.

A detailed examination of the issues by some experts on both sides of the argument might make a good article in a future issue of New Zealand Skeptic. Workers doing various repetitive tasks have complained of pain for centuries. Computer keyboards have brought some of this pain to those who, like myself, have nothing to gain by faking symptoms.

Michael Reid

OOS

Mr Matthewson’s views on OOS are definitely not “a breath of fresh air” [Skepsis, NZ Skeptic 48]. His denials are the same unhelpful reaction to this problem which has characterised a section of the medical profession for the last 15 or so years. This group needs to reflect on their unwillingness to accept what numerous patients are telling them and on their eagerness to invoke malingering (this is what it adds up to) as an explanation. The medical profession doesn’t know everything and a little less arrogance from this group might be appropriate.

Tony Walton (sometime union delegate)

Should We Change Our Name?

Say you’re a sceptic and you can almost bet on the reaction: “Well, I’m sceptical about scepticism.” (Groan!) Everyone thinks they know what we do and think, and everyone (especially if they’re invited to be our after-dinner speaker) wants to tell us how to do it better. And like civil libertarians, the media think they can guess what we will say about any subject.

More of a worry is the assumption that we are cynics, debunkers and opponents of belief in anything (and may therefore be disregarded). One way out of that would be to change our name. At an impromptu brainstorm at the conference, it was Vicki Hyde who suggested “Emperor Strippers” — although “Goggle-eyed Little Boys in the Crowd” would be more accurate.

I have another suggestion: The Missouroids.

The what??! You don’t get it? Good, so you won’t jump to any conclusions about what we’re on about, will you?

Traditionally, people from Missouri are doubters: “I’m from Missouri, so you’ll have to show me.” It’s called “the ‘Show Me’ State”. And that’s what we do, to the life. With an “-oid” to show we’re not really from there, and also give a scientific, spacey touch. It could have been “Missourans” but that sounds too much like Missourians — the real thing — or “Missourish” but that sounds as if we wear black and won’t drive cars.

So it’s an opaque name? So are Tecorians, Zonta, Soroptomists and Probus, and even Lions, Rotary, Gideons and Mormons are hardly self-explanatory, we’re just used to them.

We’d be “the Missouroids, formerly the Skeptics” for a while (giving us some of the cachet of […Prince]), but that could all be grist to our mill. We could make an occasion of changing the name, and use it as another opportunity to put the message across. At the risk of bringing in a whole other set of associations, we could do it on July 3, the Feast of St (Doubting) Thomas. (Hang on! “The Thomasoids”? — no, little spell checker, not “haemorrhoids”.)

Hugh Young

What do the rest of you think? Hugh does have a point in that many people outside the Skeptics assume they know what we are interested in.

So we’re assumed to be rabid atheists or close-minded nay-sayers. While we probably include both types in our ranks, I think the bulk of us would be happier to claim that we’re merely interested in asking questions of unusual claims.

Should we insist on using our formal name — the NZ Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal? Apart from being a real mouthful, it’s not the whole story either. We don’t do a lot of scientific investigation (at least not here in New Zealand), and we’re probably as equally concerned these days with pseudo-science as the paranormal.

My rather whimsical suggestion of the Emperor Strippers stemmed from the most useful analogy I’ve come across in describing our mission. I suspect that it would lead to all manner of misunderstandings with regard to speaking engagements though…

Vicki Hyde, Chair-entity

Recommended Posts