Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

SonOfPhilo

Online Therapy

Recommended Posts

I'm looking to get therapy sessions online as I live in a small town and don't have any good options of local therapists. Are there any therapists you guys recommend that would have an affinity/understanding for FDR content and have an online-based therapy program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SonOfPhilo said:

lol Drew Davis, are you a therapist?

Haha, yeah I am. If you would be interested in working with me, feel free to reach out. I'm not going to try to pressure or convince you. I've been doing this for three years, journaling/therapy for six and half years, introduced to FDR around a decade ago, and I believe that I am quite skilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While finding a red-pilled / FDR therapist can be nice, it's not necessary to achieve your personal growth goals. A therapist with similar values, like a Christain therapist, for instance, is an option in a small town. 

That being said I have heard Max Tsymbalau is good, and he offers online sessions. http://www.maxcounseling.com/ 

If you're looking for general tips on finding a great therapist check out my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Find-Great-Therapist-Surviving-ebook/dp/B0713XF6DN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499877540&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+find+a+great+therapist 

:)  

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 10:12 AM, kathryn said:

While finding a red-pilled / FDR therapist can be nice, it's not necessary to achieve your personal growth goals. A therapist with similar values, like a Christain therapist, for instance, is an option in a small town. 

That being said I have heard Max Tsymbalau is good, and he offers online sessions. http://www.maxcounseling.com/ 

If you're looking for general tips on finding a great therapist check out my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Find-Great-Therapist-Surviving-ebook/dp/B0713XF6DN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499877540&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+find+a+great+therapist 

:)  

For sure. I terminated counseling with my first therapist to work with my second because the second had values that were in more alignment with what I was looking for. Both therapists are/were great, but the relationship is also important too.

I would add that finding someone who continues to do work on themselves and seeks consultation/supervision/therapy with another provider is another thing that's really important. I admit that there might be bias, as that is exactly what I do, but the way that I see it is that if you want to learn how to play guitar, you don't go to someone who has studied musical theory, but to someone who actually has learned how to play guitar and is still practicing and learning.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd stay as far away from shrinks as possible if I were you.

The goal of freudian psychology is to make you conform and train you to be a better slave.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd caution against anyone who claims to be a therapist and uses the boards as a place for seeking clients.

Drew, what you're doing is not ethical behavior and takes advantage of people who post about vulnerable topics. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cherapple said:

I'd caution against anyone who claims to be a therapist and uses the boards as a place for seeking clients.

Drew, what you're doing is not ethical behavior and takes advantage of people who post about vulnerable topics. 

Why do you caution against people who self advertise? Why is it unethical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11 juillet 2017 at 9:41 AM, Drew Davis said:

I would recommend me. I work with me just about every day, and I kind of like the guy.

Drew Davis , That's interesting tell me more about the type of therapy you're competent in . I don't think that's unethical ..... This is a good place to share information 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cherapple said:

I'd caution against anyone who claims to be a therapist and uses the boards as a place for seeking clients.

Drew, what you're doing is not ethical behavior and takes advantage of people who post about vulnerable topics. 

I am ready to hear the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cherapple said:

I'd caution against anyone who claims to be a therapist and uses the boards as a place for seeking clients.

Drew, what you're doing is not ethical behavior and takes advantage of people who post about vulnerable topics. 

tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif.39d2ada2b53ff05eabc93659bcabdeff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 0:48 AM, Meister said:

I'd stay as far away from shrinks as possible if I were you.

The goal of freudian psychology is to make you conform and train you to be a better slave.

Only the non-Jungian type...

Freud definitely used it for not so ethical reasons, but he still 'discovered' the unconscious, which is a huge step forward for psychology. Jung and his vein of psychology actually tried to develop a real, healing psychoanalytic therapy (generally based on multiplicity,) which has culminated in the development of Internal Family Systems therapy, which is massively effective.

Behaviorist and CB therapists deal with some surface level stuff and are generally better suited for short-term solutions to bad habits.

Imo, btw.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Freud definitely used it for not so ethical reasons

Freud's works are the projections of a perverted mind.

 

Quote

which has culminated in the development of Internal Family Systems therapy, which is massively effective.

Are there studies that show the longterm effectiveness of IFS?

 

Quote

Behaviorist and CB therapists deal with some surface level stuff and are generally better suited for short-term solutions to bad habits.

The third generation of Cognitive Therapists is just about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ofd said:

Freud's works are the projections of a perverted mind

I don't know much about it and couldn't credibly say why he developed the theory, in The Culture of Critique they argue it was because he was a Jew and the idea of an unconsciousness is subversive to Western Society. I tend to lean toward the idea that his sexual-complex stuff was just a way of explaining away the famous Dora case study ("it's her fantasy rather than her father raping her") which is incredibly vile.

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Are there studies that show the longterm effectiveness of IFS?

Yes and Yes

I find the second link to be especially interesting as they compare the efficacy of IFS to a combination of CBT and drug treatment (considered "the gold standard" in psychotherapy) and IFS alone was able to produce the same results in terms of the reduction of depression and depressive symptoms.

Caution: Second link is a PDF download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the pdf study you linked 16 out of 22 participants completed the therapy. That's by no means a large enough sample size to draw valid conclusions. Furthermore, the graph shown show that both TAU and IFS show a decline in depression, according to the Beck Depression Index.

 

Quote

IFS alone

They write specifically that they didn't control for drug usage.

 

Quote

unconsciousness is subversive to Western Society

The idea itself is not subersive. The unconscious as a concept has been around since the Greeks. It was Freud's usage that made it a bad idea.

Lets say you are a therapist. A father writes you that his little son is afraid of horses, because the son saw an accident while walking on the street. Naturally, the fear of horses isn't connected to that incident. Rather, the horse stands in for the father who competetes with the little son in fucking the mother. Sounds legit. https://www.simplypsychology.org/little-hans.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ofd said:

In the pdf study you linked 16 out of 22 participants completed the therapy. That's by no means a large enough sample size to draw valid conclusions. Furthermore, the graph shown show that both TAU and IFS show a decline in depression, according to the Beck Depression Index.

I would direct you to the fact that I initially said that the approach of IFS is highly effective in my opinion (i.e. according to my experiences and limited knowledge.) I provided some links that I knew of which backed this up to some extent, to be clear, there are not many studies on IFS. 

Notice that you don't say something along the lines of: "Huh, that's interesting! I mean it's a small sample size so certainly not conclusive, but definitely promising for the efficacy of IFS to be in such a close range with TAU. I'm excited and curious for more studies on this, it could potentially really help people!" but went straight for the jugular, trying to discredit the study by pointing out that the sample size was small, not at all curious to what this study means for IFS in the context of it's pilot status.

Have you completed any therapy yourself? I get a sense (which doesn't mean it's true) that this is not coming from a curious place. I would be interested in exploring your skepticism, considering the fact that IFS has only been in the semi-mainstream for fifteen years or so (so there wouldn't be many studies on it), that self-reporting on the experience tends to be positive, that IFS is an evidence-based practice, and that IFS is on par with CBT in that pilot study (whether or not they 'controlled for drugs' which is not what I was saying) and that I myself have experienced positive results from it (along with others on the board.) You seem to be attempting to deconstruct a therapy approach which has been helpful for people (perhaps potentially helpful for you?) If you haven't actually gone through any IFS therapy, I would recommend reading through Jay Earley's Self-Therapy series and completing the exercises (if you're really ambitious, seek an IFS therapist) then drawing your opinion from your actual experiences of it. If you have tried IFS therapy, I would be curious as to a discussion of your experiences with it.

Ultimately, I am cognizant of the fact that different therapy approaches may work for different people. 

Edited by Eudaimonic
Added content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ofd said:

They write specifically that they didn't control for drug usage.

Presumably, the effects of the TAU condition were strengthened by the relatively frequent addition of antidepressant medication and/or group therapy to the individual therapy. Specifically, 53% of participants in the TAU condition and .06% of participants in the IFS condition started antidepressant medication immediately before or during the course of therapy. No participants in the TAU condition discontinued medication, whereas one participant in the IFS condition did so. Additionally, 33% of participants in the TAU condition and no participants in the IFS condition participated in group therapy.

This is the first known study to evaluate the efficacy of IFS in treating depressive symptoms among female college students, and only the second known study to test IFS as a treatment modality for any mental health condition. IFS treatment was compared to treatment as usual (TAU), which consisted of CBT or IPT. Results demonstrate a decline in depressive symptoms for both conditions and no significant differences in the magnitude or rate of change between IFS and TAU. Such results are promising because the treatment outcomes of IFS were compared to the “gold standard” treatments—CBT and IPT. Presumably, comparing IFS to a no-treatment control condition may result in statistically significant treatment impacts. Consistent with Shadick et al.’s (2013) study, the results of this study indicate that IFS may be a promising treatment modality for depression, which should be subjected to additional tests of treatment efficacy and effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Notice that you don't say something along the lines of: "Huh, that's interesting! I mean it's a small sample size so certainly not conclusive, but definitely promising for the efficacy of IFS to be in such a close range with TAU. I'm excited and curious for more studies on this, it could potentially really help people!"

I was curious enough to read it. To be blunt, the study is worthless. They admit as much in the conclusions. That doesn't mean that the IFS approach itself is not beneficiary, it may work for you.

 

Quote

but went straight for the jugular, trying to discredit the study by pointing out that the sample size was small, not at all curious to what this study means for IFS in the context of it's pilot status.

I have a scientific background. You are taught to assume prima facie that all studies, unless proven otherwise, are bullshit. To study the long term effects of IFS and other therapeutic approaches you'd have to have large sample groups and two control groups. The first control is just some random guy having friendly small talk with people of that group, the other group gets no counseling whatsoever. You then use a metric, like the Beck depression scale mentioned in the article, before, during, and after the therapy. This helps you to compare the longterm effect of approaches, compared to the simulation of a friend and doing nothing at all. If there is a positive effect after having finished the therapy, say after two years, then the therapy is effective.

 

Quote

Have you completed any therapy yourself? I get a sense (which doesn't mean it's true) that this is not coming from a curious place.

I have in fact. I looked for a therapist that has experience in treating people and who can has skin in the game.

 

As a teacher of mine said, 95% of everything is fluff. Skepticism allows you to have a healthy mind in a world full of bullshit.

 

Quote

I myself have experienced positive results from it (along with others on the board.) You seem to be attempting to deconstruct a therapy approach which has been helpful for people (perhaps potentially helpful for you?)

Excellent, if it works for you and other people I am happy for you. I read some basic material on IFS and found it to be unhelpful for me. Since I am no arbiter on that subject, I don't want to discourage other people to find help and consolence there.
 

Quote

Ultimately, I am cognizant of the fact that different therapy approaches may work for different people. 

I found the third generation Cognitive Approach to be helpful, after I studied other major systems. The experience may vary ;)

 

Quote

treatment as usual (TAU)

That's the reason you can't do double blind studies and why doing studies on the effectiveness of therapeutic approaches need a large scale. Unlike say dentists, therapists don't have a formula that they can work with. Being a therapist demands intuition, social intelliegence and a bunch of other factors that can't be learned. Plus, unlike fixing a hole in your teeth the results are per definition subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ofd said:

I was curious enough to read it. To be blunt, the study is worthless. They admit as much in the conclusions. That doesn't mean that the IFS approach itself is not beneficiary, it may work for you

Reading something does not mean curiosity. Someone can read something in order to poke holes because it antagonizes them. The only thing you said in regards to the study I showed you (nevermind the other one which lists several) was basically "the sample size was too small, not credible." That is not curiosity.

23 minutes ago, ofd said:

I have a scientific background. You are taught to assume prima facie that all studies, unless proven otherwise, are bullshit. To study the long term effects of IFS and other therapeutic approaches you'd have to have large sample groups and two control groups. The first control is just some random guy having friendly small talk with people of that group, the other group gets no counseling whatsoever. You then use a metric, like the Beck depression scale mentioned in the article, before, during, and after the therapy. This helps you to compare the longterm effect of approaches, compared to the simulation of a friend and doing nothing at all. If there is a positive effect after having finished the therapy, say after two years, then the therapy is effective.

I understand the concept of a credible study (though you don't always have to operate on a double-blind study to follow an exploratory correlation or trend; psychology wouldn't have advanced otherwise) but I think you're intellectualizing the issue here. 

I say "from my experience of it and from what I know, IFS is highly effective" and then you ask me for some studies on it's long term efficacy, I provide a couple study that have looked at it and you don't say thank you, you don't express appreciation or curiosity, you don't ask questions you just say "that's not credible because it's not a large sample size" ignoring the fact that I never claimed that the studies we're super air-tight. It comes off as quite rude, stoic and uncaring.

23 minutes ago, ofd said:

have in fact. I looked for a therapist that has experience in treating people and who can has skin in the game.

 

As a teacher of mine said, 95% of everything is fluff. Skepticism allows you to have a healthy mind in a world full of bullshit.

Have you actually done any therapy, though? Skepticism is great imo, but waiting for everything to be confirmed will paralyze you. This is why you also have to act from intuition and (from an IFS perspective) lead with Self in coalition with your parts.

24 minutes ago, ofd said:

Excellent, if it works for you and other people I am happy for you. I read some basic material on IFS and found it to be unhelpful for me. Since I am no arbiter on that subject, I don't want to discourage other people to find help and consolence there.

Would you mind sharing why you think you didn't find it helpful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Reading something does not mean curiosity. Someone can read something in order to poke holes because it antagonizes them.

Few people actually read and understand. Poking holes is a worthwhile skeptical activity, since it prevents you from being taken for a ride.

 

Quote

That is not curiosity.

You can argue about motivation all day long. In the end, it doesn't matter for the validity of arguments or studies.

 

Quote

I say "from my experience of it and from what I know, IFS is highly effective"

Again, if it helps you, excellent.

 

Quote

ignoring the fact that I never claimed that the studies we're super air-tight.

Why didn't you simply say "There is one study, but it has only few participants. In the future we can expect better studies"?

 

Quote

It comes off as quite rude, stoic and uncaring.

Unless you have been to conferences, where this is the norm. It's nothing personal.


 

Quote

Have you actually done any therapy, though?

Yes, I did.

 

Quote

Skepticism is great imo, but waiting for everything to be confirmed will paralyze you.

Actually, the opposite is true. You may not know what the truth is for a given situation, but you can disregard the bullshit (via negativa). And the amount of time a skeptic spends on a given day being a skeptic is minuscule. There is no skeptical way of brushing your teeth, taking a shower, going to work and so on.


 

Quote

Would you mind sharing why you think you didn't find it helpful?

It seemed overly complicated and is not in line with what we know about the way the mind works and how it developed during evolution to process signals both from the outside and the inside. Occam cuts it off when you have other more simple and testable models that explain the same phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ofd said:

Few people actually read and understand. Poking holes is a worthwhile skeptical activity, since it prevents you from being taken for a ride.

You can argue about motivation all day long. In the end, it doesn't matter for the validity of arguments or studies.

Again, if it helps you, excellent.

Why didn't you simply say "There is one study, but it has only few participants. In the future we can expect better studies"?

Unless you have been to conferences, where this is the norm. It's nothing personal.

Yes, I did.

Actually, the opposite is true. You may not know what the truth is for a given situation, but you can disregard the bullshit (via negativa). And the amount of time a skeptic spends on a given day being a skeptic is minuscule. There is no skeptical way of brushing your teeth, taking a shower, going to work and so on.

It seemed overly complicated and is not in line with what we know about the way the mind works and how it developed during evolution to process signals both from the outside and the inside. Occam cuts it off when you have other more simple and testable models that explain the same phenomena.

You're ignoring the point. What you did is definitely not curiosity because you expressed no curiosity, you just said "this is not credible" in a cold, uncaring, incurious way. Now that I express this (first as a possibility, now as a certainty) you continue on in the same way, as well as minimilizing my experience, again, showing no curiosity towards me as I have towards you several times. You think that you're just arguing facts, but my response  has little to nothing to do with responding to fact about IFS, but with my experience of how you treated me after providing you information. To be frank, it doesn't matter any longer how "valid" your arguments are, you're pushing the issue into the abstract and intellectualizing it, showing a huge lack of empathy. (Which is again shown by your lack of donation status; there is almost no excuse to actively use this service and not donate when Stefan provides you value and asks kindly for reciprocation. I and very poor and manage to donate 20 a month, the lowest is 5 which a homeless man could swing.) It's clear that you don't care about this conversation, IFS, this board, what I may be able to share with you, how I am affected by you or even the actual truth of the matter itself.

It no longer matters how "valid" your facts or argument are anymore. I could learn as much from a book, and it would treat me with more kindness than you have. If you can't treat another person with curiosity and empathy in a basic discussion over some studies, what wisdom can you offer to me or anyone else?

Absolutely none.

This discussion is over for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're ignoring the point. What you did is definitely not curiosity because you expressed no curiosity, you just said "this is not credible" in a cold, uncaring, incurious way. Now that I express this (first as a possibility, now as a certainty) you continue on in the same way, as well as minimilizing my experience, again, showing no curiosity towards me as I have towards you several times.

Emotional states don't make statements more true, nor do they make them more false. Facts don't care about feelings.

 

Quote

If you can't treat another person with curiosity and empathy in a basic discussion over some studies, what wisdom can you offer to me or anyone else?

I never claimed that I could offer wisdom. If you can't judge statements on their merits alone you have a lot to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.