Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 This is a letter written in response to Dr. Gail E. Chandler (I don't remember if this is one Tommy was talking about). This was a letter in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue in " The National Psychologist " , in defense of AA. The writer responds with, [your letter ] " is so inconsistent as to border on the inane. The following three passages occur in Dr. Chandler's letter: 1) 'While AA does not pretend to engage in empirical studies of effectiveness... 2) If AA works for some, presently more than any other alternative... 3) ...AA chooses not to engage in public debate, preferring to let their results over the past 65 years speak for themselves. " The inconsistency is that without the empirical studies of effectiveness in which 'AA does not pretend to engage,' on what basis does Dr. Chandler make either of the two latter statements, both of which allude to an effectivenss which, by Dr. Chandler's own admission, AA has not demonstrated empirically? The only role of testimonials and anecdotes should be to spur the empirical research that would either validate or invalidate those testimonials and anecdotes. Lest clinical psychology leave itself open to charges of quackery, my bias is that the practicing clinician should stick to empirically validated approaches, or else, as part of informed consent, provide clients with the caveat, 'Hey, no one has been able to demonstrate whether this process to which I am suggesting that you expose yourself works or not.' I think this warning is particularly important, ethically speaking, when one is taking fee for service. " (signed member of APA) Heh. I was delighted to see this!!! Piper. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 > > > This is a letter written in response to Dr. Gail E. Chandler (I don't > remember if this is one Tommy was talking about). This was a letter in the > Nov/Dec 2000 issue in " The National Psychologist " , in defense of AA. The > writer responds with, [your letter ] " is so inconsistent as to border on the > inane. > > The following three passages occur in Dr. Chandler's letter: > > 1) 'While AA does not pretend to engage in empirical studies of > effectiveness... > > 2) If AA works for some, presently more than any other alternative... > > 3) ...AA chooses not to engage in public debate, preferring to let their > results > over the past 65 years speak for themselves. " > > The inconsistency is that without the empirical studies of effectiveness > in which > 'AA does not pretend to engage,' on what basis does Dr. Chandler make either > of the two latter statements, both of which allude to an effectivenss which, > by Dr. Chandler's own admission, AA has not demonstrated empirically? > The only role of testimonials and anecdotes should be to spur the > empirical research that would either validate or invalidate those > testimonials and anecdotes. Lest clinical psychology leave itself open to > charges of quackery, my bias is that the practicing clinician should stick to > empirically validated approaches, or else, as part of informed consent, > provide clients with the caveat, 'Hey, no one has been able to demonstrate > whether this process to which I am suggesting that you expose yourself works > or not.' I think this warning is particularly important, ethically speaking, > when one is taking fee for service. " (signed member of APA) > > Heh. I was delighted to see this!!! Piper. Hahahaha! The AAs are so used to saying any cliche that sounds good at that moment, they don't realize how silly and insane they sound when the contradict themselves. It's great when you can spot that and then actually get a word in edgewise. Best, > > > > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 > > > This is a letter written in response to Dr. Gail E. Chandler (I don't > remember if this is one Tommy was talking about). This was a letter in the > Nov/Dec 2000 issue in " The National Psychologist " , in defense of AA. The > writer responds with, [your letter ] " is so inconsistent as to border on the > inane. > > The following three passages occur in Dr. Chandler's letter: > > 1) 'While AA does not pretend to engage in empirical studies of > effectiveness... > > 2) If AA works for some, presently more than any other alternative... > > 3) ...AA chooses not to engage in public debate, preferring to let their > results > over the past 65 years speak for themselves. " > > The inconsistency is that without the empirical studies of effectiveness > in which > 'AA does not pretend to engage,' on what basis does Dr. Chandler make either > of the two latter statements, both of which allude to an effectivenss which, > by Dr. Chandler's own admission, AA has not demonstrated empirically? > The only role of testimonials and anecdotes should be to spur the > empirical research that would either validate or invalidate those > testimonials and anecdotes. Lest clinical psychology leave itself open to > charges of quackery, my bias is that the practicing clinician should stick to > empirically validated approaches, or else, as part of informed consent, > provide clients with the caveat, 'Hey, no one has been able to demonstrate > whether this process to which I am suggesting that you expose yourself works > or not.' I think this warning is particularly important, ethically speaking, > when one is taking fee for service. " (signed member of APA) > > Heh. I was delighted to see this!!! Piper. Hahahaha! The AAs are so used to saying any cliche that sounds good at that moment, they don't realize how silly and insane they sound when the contradict themselves. It's great when you can spot that and then actually get a word in edgewise. Best, > > > > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 > > > This is a letter written in response to Dr. Gail E. Chandler (I don't > remember if this is one Tommy was talking about). This was a letter in the > Nov/Dec 2000 issue in " The National Psychologist " , in defense of AA. The > writer responds with, [your letter ] " is so inconsistent as to border on the > inane. > > The following three passages occur in Dr. Chandler's letter: > > 1) 'While AA does not pretend to engage in empirical studies of > effectiveness... > > 2) If AA works for some, presently more than any other alternative... > > 3) ...AA chooses not to engage in public debate, preferring to let their > results > over the past 65 years speak for themselves. " > > The inconsistency is that without the empirical studies of effectiveness > in which > 'AA does not pretend to engage,' on what basis does Dr. Chandler make either > of the two latter statements, both of which allude to an effectivenss which, > by Dr. Chandler's own admission, AA has not demonstrated empirically? > The only role of testimonials and anecdotes should be to spur the > empirical research that would either validate or invalidate those > testimonials and anecdotes. Lest clinical psychology leave itself open to > charges of quackery, my bias is that the practicing clinician should stick to > empirically validated approaches, or else, as part of informed consent, > provide clients with the caveat, 'Hey, no one has been able to demonstrate > whether this process to which I am suggesting that you expose yourself works > or not.' I think this warning is particularly important, ethically speaking, > when one is taking fee for service. " (signed member of APA) > > Heh. I was delighted to see this!!! Piper. Hahahaha! The AAs are so used to saying any cliche that sounds good at that moment, they don't realize how silly and insane they sound when the contradict themselves. It's great when you can spot that and then actually get a word in edgewise. Best, > > > > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.