> 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.
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.
> You're being intentionally dishonest here.
You're being irrational.