I'm unsure whether we're talking past each other or if my point simply isn't coming across. My issue with your comments has nothing at all to do with your issues with therapy, most of which I agree with you on. The issue I have is that you're making assumptions based on this research that the research doesn't back up. From your original comment:
> It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy.
This is simply not supported. Full stop. It's especially not supported by research that has nothing to do with the efficacy of virtual therapy.
>> It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy.
> This is simply not supported.
Certainly not, when taken out of context as you have done. Here's the original context, with the parts you deleted:
>> A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing
> It's true, and this speaks volumes about the value of therapy as a profession. The reason? It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy.
Now read carefully: IF "A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing", the remark to which I directly replied, THEN "It proves that people are competent to treat themselves".
I fail to see how this is logically sound. Let's look at this by way of analogy:
I create a new pain reliever; let's call it SuperTylenol. Would it be logically sound for me to state that if it is sometimes more effective than regular Tylenol, then people have the ability to relieve their pain without it?
You may be able to say that it suggests such results, but it'd be incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it proves such a thing.
Again, the science doesn't support the weight of your statements, as far as I can tell.
> You may be able to say that it suggests such results, but it'd be incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it proves such a thing.
I laid it out for you explicitly -- IF, THEN. Stop excising a phrase from a full context. IF the antecedent, THEN the consequent.
> Again, the science doesn't support the weight of your statements, as far as I can tell.
"The science"? What science is that? We're discussing a field so bereft of science that the chair of the NIMH has recently ruled that the DSM may no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content:
Last comment: You're being intentionally dishonest here. You laid out an IF and a THEN with no relation whatsoever between the two.
IF I can fly a plane, THEN I can make a sandwich. This is the equivalent statement. The virtual therapist being better than a real therapist does not automatically mean that a person can treat themselves any more than an insulin pump means a diabetic can cure themselves.
Again, I agree with you about the lack of scientific rigour in psychology. The issue is you completely mischaracterizing logic and science. You're being dishonest.
> The virtual therapist being better than a real therapist does not automatically mean that a person can treat themselves
Of course it does. Do you seriously think a person alone in a room with a computer is being treated by a professional? That he is somehow not "treating himself"?
If this virtual therapy idea takes hold, people will be able to choose which therapeutic modality they prefer, then sequester themselves for a private and entirely virtual conversation, one less interpersonal than anything else they do with their computers. They will be treating themselves.
To see your logical error, imagine that someone engaged in virtual therapy insists that they are not treating themselves, but are having a real interpersonal interaction with a mental health professional. That would be grounds for commitment based on mental incompetence.
Imagine that someone who only plays computer Solitaire is accused of not having any real friends. Can he rationally insist that this is not so, that he's not playing with himself but has an imaginary friend?
> You laid out an IF and a THEN with no relation whatsoever between the two.
You read it, but you failed to grasp its meaning. Here it is again: IF "A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than the real thing", the remark to which I directly replied, THEN "It proves that people are competent to treat themselves".
Circle the words you didn't understand and raise your hand.
> It proves that people are competent to treat themselves, the real meaning of virtual therapy.
This is simply not supported. Full stop. It's especially not supported by research that has nothing to do with the efficacy of virtual therapy.