Low mood since Hypnotherapy

claire d

Recently I've started seeing a hypnotherapist to combat my fear of flying. I attended my first session a couple of days ago, it last over an hour and I came out so upbeat. The next morning after the session I've been experiencing low mood and I can't seem to shake it. Has anyone ever experience anything like this before? I'm due to have another session soon, but! I'm terrified to go back in case this feeling gets worse. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

dar100

claire d wrote: »

Recently I've started seeing a hypnotherapist to combat my fear of flying. I attended my first session a couple of days ago, it last over an hour and I came out so upbeat. The next morning after the session I've been experiencing low mood and I can't seem to shake it. Has anyone ever experience anything like this before? I'm due to have another session soon, but! I'm terrified to go back in case this feeling gets worse. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I don't know a lot about hypnotherapy, so you may want to get further advice. But, if it is this that is making you feel like that, I personally would not go back. Is there anything else going on in your life, that could be causing the low mood?

Perhaps you should go to a CBT therapist

claire d

I'm due to go back next week but I'm not going to go back. It has freaked me out, I haven't been able to shift this mood since the morning after my session which is going on 5 days now.

JuliusCaesar

People can often have extreme reactions, both positive and negative to a first session of counselling or therapy: from I can't believe I've done it! I can't believe I told the therapist all that! I can't believe the relief! I'm so glad I've made a start on doing something about my problems to Oh my god I shouldn't have told the therapist all that! I didn't realise I was so bad!The therapist will think I'm mad/weird/whatever! This is never going to work! It's way too expensive/difficult/useless!

Hypnosis by itself is not generally recommended - is the hypnotist a trained therapist? What kind of approach do they use?

Check out the stickied thread on Finding a Counsellor/Therapist on this forum, you might find it useful.

Mr.Frame

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

People can often have extreme reactions, both positive and negative to a first session of counselling or therapy: from I can't believe I've done it! I can't believe I told the therapist all that! I can't believe the relief! I'm so glad I've made a start on doing something about my problems to Oh my god I shouldn't have told the therapist all that! I didn't realise I was so bad!The therapist will think I'm mad/weird/whatever! This is never going to work! It's way too expensive/difficult/useless!

Hypnosis by itself is not generally recommended - is the hypnotist a trained therapist? What kind of approach do they use?

Check out the stickied thread on Finding a Counsellor/Therapist on this forum, you might find it useful.

You say "Hypnosis by itself is not generally recommended ".
That's an extremely bold statement to make .Not recommended by whom ?
Have you got evidence to back your OTT claim up ?

claire d

I've decided against going back to Hypnothearpy. It wasn't for me. I didn't like the feeling I had gotten for the few days afterwards, it took me a long time to snap out of it. The guy I went to was registered and fully qualified. When I explained my anxious feelings for several days, he had no explanation or suggestions as to how to stop the feeling.

Mr.Frame

claire d wrote: »

I've decided against going back to Hypnothearpy. It wasn't for me. I didn't like the feeling I had gotten for the few days afterwards, it took me a long time to snap out of it. The guy I went to was registered and fully qualified. When I explained my anxious feelings for several days, he had no explanation or suggestions as to how to stop the feeling.

The only explanation is that, this feeling you experienced afterwards, is obviously something that deep rooted in your subconscious mind has been uprooted if you like and needs to be explored.
I wouldnt have just left it .The initial session you went to "moved something" in your SCM that IMO needs to be addressed.
IF that particualr hypnotherapist couldnt help you others I am sure could.

JuliusCaesar

Mr.Frame wrote: »

You say "Hypnosis by itself is not generally recommended ".
That's an extremely bold statement to make .Not recommended by whom ?
Have you got evidence to back your OTT claim up ?

I don't think it's recommended by any body whatsoever, as an answer. Hypnosis is a technique that may be used within an evidence-based treatment approach, but is not a treatment in itself.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

The only explanation is that, this feeling you experienced afterwards, is obviously something that deep rooted in your subconscious mind has been uprooted if you like and needs to be explored.
I wouldnt have just left it .The initial session you went to "moved something" in your SCM that IMO needs to be addressed.
IF that particualr hypnotherapist couldnt help you others I am sure could.

Where do I start?

I've bolded some of the more contentious points. Perhaps you can come up with some EVIDENCE to back up your claims. And also to back up your claim for an entity which you call the "subconscious mind". I do not think that the existence of this entity has ever been proven.

Please bear in mind that this Psychology forum comes under the Science heading for a reason, and not under weird-theories-someone-happens-to-believe-in. Faith is not evidence.

DM addict

OP I think if you weren't finding benefit and your therapist couldn't explain your negative feelings or low mood, then you've made the right choice not to go back.

Hope you can find a suitable form of therapy for your needs.

Mr.Frame

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I don't think it's recommended by any body whatsoever, as an answer. Hypnosis is a technique that may be used within an evidence-based treatment approach, but is not a treatment in itself..

Really? I mean really?
On what basis do think it is NOT a treatment
Try telling that to all those who have benefitted from a hypnotherapy treatment






Where do I start?

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I've bolded some of the more contentious points. Perhaps you can come up with some EVIDENCE to back up your claims. And also to back up your claim for an entity which you call the "subconscious mind". I do not think that the existence of this entity has ever been proven..

Oh right so we don't have a subconscious mind.Fair enough if that is your logic there is no point in me even going there as you have "already made up your mind " about hypnosis.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion ,but when you make the comments as you did above in your initial comment to the OP completely without foundation,despite numerous people worldwide who have benefited from hypnosis (for all kinds of conditions),then its pointless even engaging with you
.[/QUOTE]

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Please bear in mind that this Psychology forum comes under the Science heading for a reason, and not under weird-theories-someone-happens-to-believe-in. Faith is not evidence.

As above,try telling that to people who have benefited from hypnosis

DM addict

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Really? I mean really?
On what basis do think it is NOT a treatment
Try telling that to all those who have benefitted from a hypnotherapy treatment






Where do I start?



Oh right so we don't have a subconscious mind.Fair enough if that is your logic there is no point in me even going there as you have "already made up your mind " about hypnosis.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion ,but when you make the comments as you did above in your initial comment to the OP completely without foundation,despite numerous people worldwide who have benefited from hypnosis (for all kinds of conditions),then its pointless even engaging with you.




As above,try telling that to people who have benefited from hypnosis

I think you're missing the point somewhat. JC said that hypnosis on it's own was not recommended, and then asked if the hypnotist was also a trained therapist.

Point being, if I knew how to hypnotise people into dancing around like a chicken, that doesn't mean I'm qualified to use hypnosis as a therapeutic technique. In order to help someone deal with a specific phobia, like the OP, you need to be qualified in psychotherapy/CBT/something similar. Doesn't mean that hypnosis couldn't be part of the session - provided it was being used as part of an evidence based treatment.

As far as I'm aware, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence about the effectiveness of hypnotherapy for things like smoking/phobia, but very little in terms of RCTs or other controlled studies. If you can point me at some of these, I'd be interested - but simply saying "numerous people worldwide" have benefited, without backing it up, is problematic.

See?

Labarbapostiza

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

And also to back up your claim for an entity which you call the "subconscious mind". I do not think that the existence of this entity has ever been proven.

Let's see if we can prove the existence of the "subconscious mind" through logic and probability alone.

The subject, Claire_d, attends a hypnotherapist. She leaves in a upbeat mood, but subsequently experiences feelings of anxiety. She is not conscious of the reasons for her feelings of anxiety. So she comes on an internet psychology forum to ask for an insight into the reasons she is experiencing anxiety, because she herself is not conscious of those reasons.

There are infinite possibilities, but we can narrow them to the most probable.

One. She is lying. And is fully aware of the causes of her anxiety. And the subconscious mind does not exist.

Two. There is a rational structure to her anxiety, but she is not consciously aware of it. It is below her consciousness, and inaccessible to her conscious mind. It resides in her subconscious, and the subconscious mind does exist.

The basis of psychology is not Platonic objectivity, it's subjective phenomena. And the subconscious is not a Platonic object.

claire d

I'm not sure as to why I had gotten those feelings I only wish I did. I know after that session he had gotten me in a lift one of which I hadn't been on in years but then the day after I felt so anxious and wouldn't get back in a lift. To me it felt like false hopes on the day and the real fear just came back. It was like for those few moments my fear was masked.

I have friends who have attended hypnotherapy sessions and have beaten various things such as smoking, weight loss and flying, but! For me I didn't like the after feeling when I had woken the day after.

JuliusCaesar

This thread is developing into three:

1. the OPs original query, which has been answered.

2. a 'debate' on hypnosis, with only anecdotal evidence ("many people have benefitted") and no real scientific evidence.

3. philosophical musings, also with a lack of any kind of real scientific evidence.



If you want to continue 2 or 3, start a thread of your own. But do remember, Psychology is in the SCIENCE forums for a reason.

Labarbapostiza

claire d wrote: »

I'm not sure as to why I had gotten those feelings I only wish I did. I know after that session he had gotten me in a lift one of which I hadn't been on in years but then the day after I felt so anxious and wouldn't get back in a lift. To me it felt like false hopes on the day and the real fear just came back. It was like for those few moments my fear was masked.

Labarbapostiza - I have edited out a lot of diagnoses and assumptions as you do not seem to have read the forum charter. Please read it before posting again. JC

I'll explain how hypnosis works. Do you know when you get a song stuck in your head, and it keeps playing over and over again. That's what hypnosis does except with a suggestion that can change your reaction and experience of situations.

But it depends which suggestions are stronger. With hypnotherapy the effect is usually more gentle. If you had a little benefit out of it, you might get more, but by spacing sessions over a few months. Smaller steps, and with lower expectations from the sessions. But then again it may not be for you.

I have friends who have attended hypnotherapy sessions and have beaten various things such as smoking, weight loss and flying, but! For me I didn't like the after feeling when I had woken the day after.

edited...

Going through the process might make you feel a little weird. For a lot of people who it works for, they barely or don't notice any difference. It depends on the jump though.

Hypnotherapy may not be for you. It's normal and healthy to have a little anxiety, but extreme anxiety is not. There are various other therapies and sources that may help you. You could consider your experience with hypnotherapy as a first step.

I would recommend you talk to your GP, you can even talk to your local pharmacist, they're trained to give advice. And take a little step at a time.

hotspur

This does highlight a problem with hypnotherapists who aren't otherwise mental health professionals. A flashy site and the equivalent of a week or two's training doesn't equip someone to reliably work well with anxiety disorders.

One of the chief problems is the illusion of a quick fix that is offered by that approach. Now quick fixes are possible (see Lars Goran Ost's work), but rarely are they achieved long term for specific phobias using the techniques that lay hypnotherapists tend to use.

Most hypnotherapists will approach treating a specific phobia with relaxation, coping suggestions, and perhaps regression therapy if believed to be stemming from an initial sensitising event.

The problem with the main method of hypnotically induced relaxation being paired imaginatively with the feared stimulus is that this generally takes a lot of sessions to be effective even in cases where it will be. Those who know their history of early behaviour therapy will be aware of how many sessions Wolpe's systematic desensitisation took.

As used by most hypnotherapists the relaxation and coping suggestions probably actually function as a short term safety behaviour, which give the illusion of short term successful treatment but in fact do nothing to alter the underlying specific catastrophic cognitions. And the relaxation prevents full exposure to the anxiety so habituation does not take place.

Also for some people relaxation can bring things up. Particular experiences of trauma or past / present living situations can result in people having a strong need for hypervigilence against threat, and experiencing relaxation can trigger anxiety as their "guard is let down". And for others there may be metacognitive issues relating to fears about experiencing anxiety itself which self-exposure may bring up.

Unfortunately almost all hypnotherapists have a very narrow framework within which they understand anxiety treatment. I would never discourage anyone from seeing a hypnotherapist for a specific phobia as I think it's a decent option in respect of ultimate cost and the lack of really suitable alternatives. But it is a punt.

The next option I would investigate would be a good CBT therapist. I believe JC may have some opinions on what constitutes a good CBT therapist

Mr.Frame

hotspur wrote: »

This does highlight a problem with hypnotherapists who aren't otherwise mental health professionals. A flashy site and the equivalent of a week or two's training doesn't equip someone to reliably work well with anxiety disorders.

One of the chief problems is the illusion of a quick fix that is offered by that approach. Now quick fixes are possible (see Lars Goran Ost's work), but rarely are they achieved long term for specific phobias using the techniques that lay hypnotherapists tend to use.

Most hypnotherapists will approach treating a specific phobia with relaxation, coping suggestions, and perhaps regression therapy if believed to be stemming from an initial sensitising event.

The problem with the main method of hypnotically induced relaxation being paired imaginatively with the feared stimulus is that this generally takes a lot of sessions to be effective even in cases where it will be. Those who know their history of early behaviour therapy will be aware of how many sessions Wolpe's systematic desensitisation took.

As used by most hypnotherapists the relaxation and coping suggestions probably actually function as a short term safety behaviour, which give the illusion of short term successful treatment but in fact do nothing to alter the underlying specific catastrophic cognitions. And the relaxation prevents full exposure to the anxiety so habituation does not take place.

Also for some people relaxation can bring things up. Particular experiences of trauma or past / present living situations can result in people having a strong need for hypervigilence against threat, and experiencing relaxation can trigger anxiety as their "guard is let down". And for others there may be metacognitive issues relating to fears about experiencing anxiety itself which self-exposure may bring up.

Unfortunately almost all hypnotherapists have a very narrow framework within which they understand anxiety treatment. I would never discourage anyone from seeing a hypnotherapist for a specific phobia as I think it's a decent option in respect of ultimate cost and the lack of really suitable alternatives. But it is a punt.

The next option I would investigate would be a good CBT therapist. I believe JC may have some opinions on what constitutes a good CBT therapist

Incredible amount of sweeping statements and generalisations .
"flashy websites"," a week or two training","a short term safety behaviour", almost all hypnotherapists have a very narrow framework ".
Very disingenuous to say the least

hotspur

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Incredible amount of sweeping statements and generalisations .

There is something wrong with generalisations when talking about a group in general?

Mr.Frame wrote: »

"flashy websites"," a week or two training",

I know the guy the op went to, I know his site and I know his qualifications.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

"a short term safety behaviour", almost all hypnotherapists have a very narrow framework ".
Very disingenuous to say the least

I imagine you are a hypnotherapist (so am I), do you want to speak to the proposed mechanisms of change in working hypnotherapeutically with specific phobia as you understand it?

dar100

I'd like to hear this debate, Hotspur, can you recommend a good hypnotherapy course, or what I should look for when seeking one out?

Mr.Frame

hotspur wrote: »

There is something wrong with generalisations when talking about a group in general?

Making generalisations and sweeping statements and putting ALL hypnotherapists into the same basket is wrong yes.

hotspur wrote: »

I know the guy the op went to, I know his site and I know his qualifications.

Your comment didn't make a distinction between the guy the OP went to and ALL hypnotherapists.

hotspur wrote: »

I imagine you are a hypnotherapist (so am I), do you want to speak to the proposed mechanisms of change in working hypnotherapeutically with specific phobia as you understand it?

So you did a week or two training I presume ?

hotspur

dar100 wrote: »

I'd like to hear this debate, Hotspur, can you recommend a good hypnotherapy course, or what I should look for when seeking one out?

I don't think that it greatly matters which one you choose if you are choosing from ones in Ireland. The one I would tend to recommend is on a break at the moment I believe. I'm not a fan of the biggest one - the ICHP as I have issues with their graduates calling themselves hypnotherapists and psychotherapists, their diploma mill doctorate director, and they have traditionally had a strong hypnoanalysis orientation which isn't my cup of tea.

The trainings offered by various National Guild of Hypnotists trainers are pretty bog standard.

To be honest I would probably just choose the cheapest option out there in Ireland, or else, if you could afford it, train in the UK with:
http://www.ukhypnosis.com/

If it is running then I would choose this course in Ireland:
http://www.hypnotherapytraining.ie/

As disclosure I did that course, did some teaching on it, and the owner is a friend of mine. So I am biased.

It doesn't look like we're going to get that debate on the proposed mechanisms of action in the hypnotherapeutic amelioration of specific phobias. But if you are inclined towards the scientific side of hypnosis and hypnotherapy Dar I recommend accessing International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis papers:
http://ijceh.com/

And a very good book is the American Psychological Association published Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis:
https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317205.aspx

The website www.hypnothoughts.com is good (and their online training affiliated site is much better training than you will get live in Ireland). It is very active, although it has a broad membership and scientist-practitioner orientated people tend to get burnt as witches.

Labarbapostiza

hotspur wrote: »

It doesn't look like we're going to get that debate on the proposed mechanisms of action in the hypnotherapeutic amelioration of specific phobias.

Because JC will come along and edit out any assumptions they don't like?


The thing about anxieties and phobias is their extent is hard to quantify. There is a big difference between someone who is nervous in a room full of strangers, and someone who is trapped in their home due to agoraphobia. If the phobia is an element of PTSD, it's the PTSD is the problem not the phobia. Though hypnotherapy might be useful for very specific mild PTSD.

But it's a better attempt at resolving issues than a valium prescription.

JuliusCaesar

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Because JC will come along and edit out any assumptions they don't like?

If you will SUBSTANTIATE your claims, I won't edit anything. Massive assumptions without any evidence, yes, I will edit them out. As I keep saying, this is a Psychology Forum. You already have a warning.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The thing about anxieties and phobias is their extent is hard to quantify.

Maybe so, but we still do study epidemiology and prevalence. We need to have figures, and we do have figures.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Though hypnotherapy might be useful for very specific mild PTSD.

Evidence?

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

But it's a better attempt at resolving issues than a valium prescription.

We're all agreed on that. GPs are generally reluctant to prescribe benzodiazepines.

claire d

My phobia would be very severe, It would be more of a feeling of being trapped. I don't go into small rooms, lifts, planes etc... Anywhere that I can't leave when I would like to.

I guess I'm just the lost cause and maybe some day I'll beat it myself. I felt hypnotherpy wasn't for me as the session had made me feel worse within myself. Maybe yes it has worked for others but for me it was like I was going backwards.

Labarbapostiza

claire d wrote: »

My phobia would be very severe, It would be more of a feeling of being trapped. I don't go into small rooms, lifts, planes etc... Anywhere that I can't leave when I would like to. .

I think you should think about the whole thing. If you can live with it, fine, but if it's controlling your life, it isn't fine. If it's controlling your life, talk to your GP - definitely if it's getting progressively worse. There are drugs for anxiety, that are not tranquillisers like Valium.

I guess I'm just the lost cause and maybe some day I'll beat it myself. I felt hypnotherpy wasn't for me as the session had made me feel worse within myself. Maybe yes it has worked for others but for me it was like I was going backwards.

Any kind of change might feel weird. And the more severe the problem, the longer it takes to fix.

claire d

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I think you should think about the whole thing. If you can live with it, fine, but if it's controlling your life, it isn't fine. If it's controlling your life, talk to your GP - definitely if it's getting progressively worse. There are drugs for anxiety, that are not tranquillisers like Valium. Thank you for your reply, no I'm actually fed up living like this I want to travel. Thanks very much for your feed back.



Any kind of change might feel weird. And the more severe the problem, the longer it takes to fix.

I'm going to find a new Hypnotherapist hopefully a recommended one.

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

3. philosophical musings, also with a lack of any kind of real scientific evidence.

But do remember, Psychology is in the SCIENCE forums for a reason.

I don't think such a painfully crude account of the scientific character of psychology does the field any favours. The entire positivist rationale for valuing and seeking empirical evidence is in and of itself a philosophical musing with a lack of any kind of evidence so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

The simple fact is that the mental health side psychology has only a very slim claim to be a science at any level. Speaking of evidence, there is none to suggest that any mental illnesses are in fact diseases according to the scientific criteria which modernised medicine as set out by Virchow in the late 1800's.

Pathologists are scientists that deal with objectively verifiable physical lesions that can be analysed scientifically. Clinical psychologists deal with negatively valued behaviours, thoughts, and feelings that are determined to be 'diseases' by fiat and without any recourse to the objective standards of physical pathology. Diagnosis without objective confirmation then, for psychologists, is really a very unsophisticated and crude labeling exercise which is not based on any objective facts but only on the aggregate opinion of other 'professionals' who agree on a name for a certain set of behaviours. There is nothing scientific about that endeavour.

For example, clinical psychologist Richard Bentall adhered to the scientific requirements of psychological 'science', and argued persuasively that anything can be labelled as a mental illness, if we fulfill the only genuine criteria: behaviours (I use this in the broadest sense) that are valued negatively. What we have then is a 'science' based on nothing more than the changing perceptions and valuations of the way people live, their values, feelings, and actions -- hardly scientific in any practical sense.

And if we are to insist that the scientific character of our field is in what works i.e evidence-based approaches then we have to accept that we are dealing with a rough aggregate. Yes, CBT is extremely effective for the largest number of people for certain problems but human problems, that is social, personal, moral, and behavioural and problems being what they are, can change in any number of ways we don't understand. For example, no matter what the evidence says in the journals we cannot deny that person X has been 'cured' of their depression due to discredited therapy Y because we can only take their word for how they are feeling as happiness is not only relative, but there is no objective scientific evidence possible that can prove the existence of a feeling so subjective it varies from person to person!

dar100

hotspur wrote: »

I don't think that it greatly matters which one you choose if you are choosing from ones in Ireland. The one I would tend to recommend is on a break at the moment I believe. I'm not a fan of the biggest one - the ICHP as I have issues with their graduates calling themselves hypnotherapists and psychotherapists, their diploma mill doctorate director, and they have traditionally had a strong hypnoanalysis orientation which isn't my cup of tea.

The trainings offered by various National Guild of Hypnotists trainers are pretty bog standard.

To be honest I would probably just choose the cheapest option out there in Ireland, or else, if you could afford it, train in the UK with:
http://www.ukhypnosis.com/

If it is running then I would choose this course in Ireland:
http://www.hypnotherapytraining.ie/

As disclosure I did that course, did some teaching on it, and the owner is a friend of mine. So I am biased.

It doesn't look like we're going to get that debate on the proposed mechanisms of action in the hypnotherapeutic amelioration of specific phobias. But if you are inclined towards the scientific side of hypnosis and hypnotherapy Dar I recommend accessing International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis papers:
http://ijceh.com/

And a very good book is the American Psychological Association published Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis:
https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317205.aspx

The website www.hypnothoughts.com is good (and their online training affiliated site is much better training than you will get live in Ireland). It is very active, although it has a broad membership and scientist-practitioner orientated people tend to get burnt as witches.

Cheers Hotspur, I'l have a look into that

Labarbapostiza

Valmont wrote: »

Pathologists are scientists that deal with objectively verifiable physical lesions that can be analysed scientifically. Clinical psychologists deal with negatively valued behaviours, thoughts, and feelings that are determined to be 'diseases' by fiat and without any recourse to the objective standards of physical pathology.

You're correct on most points, but psychology also covers a broad spectrum phenomena, much of which is not considered to be pathological. Social psychology for example.

The differences between physical pathology and psychology is that you can x-ray a leg, and see a broken bone, but you cannot x-ray a head and see a broken mind. But you can observe broken thinking and broken behaviour.

Diagnosis without objective confirmation then, for psychologists, is really a
very unsophisticated and crude labeling exercise which is not based on any
objective facts but only on the aggregate opinion of other 'professionals' who agree on a name for a certain set of behaviours. There is nothing
scientific about that endeavour.

But this does not make it much different from physical pathology. Many physical diseases are clusters of symptoms. What makes them objective diseases to be labelled is the recurrence of those clusters. Psychological pathologies also have clusters of symptoms. Mono-polar and bi-polar depression were once just classed as depression. There are probably more distinctions to be made.

For example, clinical psychologist Richard Bentall adhered to the scientific requirements of psychological 'science', and argued persuasively that anything can be labelled as a mental illness, if we fulfill the only genuine criteria: behaviours (I use this in the broadest
sense) that are valued negatively.

Valued negatively by whom? Up to the early 70s, homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a psychiatric disorder. Then for the latest DSM there was a campaign to have homophobia added as a disorder.

What we have then is a 'science' based on nothing more than the changing
perceptions and valuations of the way people live, their values, feelings, and
actions -- hardly scientific in any practical sense.

Long before the idea of psychology as a science the mad houses existed. In Ireland in living memory, these institutions were used to lock up people deemed to be socially disruptive in one manner or another. The victim of rape was far more likely to end up in an institution than the perpetrator.

This isn't a phenomenon unique to Ireland. In Russia women are currently being committed to asylums for being insufficiently submissive to their husbands. In the US, teenagers can find themselves locked up in faith led treatment centres, where the power of praying to Jebus is part of the program, for simply being vaguely disruptive (which could be the result of having a mother with narcissistic disorder projecting the disruption onto them).

And if we are to insist that the scientific character of our field is in
what works i.e evidence-based approaches then we have to accept
that we are dealing with a rough aggregate.

Really I don't know what definition JC is using to as a classification for science. Karl Popper, whose definition is often invoked, was a philosopher, not a scientist. A lot of what is considered to be science in the psychical sciences doesn't stand up to Popper's rules.

Statistical aggregates are used in the physical sciences. The Higgs Boson, was a hypothesis proposed by Higgs, the evidence for its' existence is based on a statistical aggregate of zillions of collisions.

There are certain things in psychology I believe to be true, but proving them could be incredibly difficult. I believe in the pathological use of language. For example how people with narcissistic personality disorder can reveal specifics of the disorder in speech.

Valmont

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The differences between physical pathology and psychology is that you can x-ray a leg, and see a broken bone, but you cannot x-ray a head and see a broken mind. But you can observe broken thinking and broken behaviour.

There is no objective scientific standard by which to judge thinking broken. We know the function of a liver or of the heart and can say that they are literally broken according to that objective function. To say that someone's thinking is 'broken' we need to have an objective and scientifically established theory on the function of a human -- but that is a question for philosophy and religion, not psychology. As such, we can only speak about 'broken' thinking metaphorically.

Labarbapostiza wrote:

But this does not make it much different from physical pathology. Many physical diseases are clusters of symptoms. What makes them objective diseases to be labelled is the recurrence of those clusters. Psychological pathologies also have clusters of symptoms. Mono-polar and bi-polar depression were once just classed as depression. There are probably more distinctions to be made.

Physical pathology has been a proper science only since the publication of Virchow's Cellular Pathology in 1850. Virchow argued that the only objective standard for classifying disease was by identifying physical alterations in the various organs and tissues of the body. The problem with the Sydenham approach (the 'clusters' of symptoms) is that there is no limit to the permutations of symptoms that could comprise a disease. Indeed this approach gives us the endlessly expanding list of mental disorders we are faced with today.