Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 2

Distinguishing between therapy, counseling, coaching and mentoring
Therapy is usually seen as being applied to mental health or diagnosable psychiatric issues. Counselling to non-psychiatric issues, but still things that might create emotional reactions. Coaching is aimed at a goal or achieving something. Mentoring is aimed at the personal progress of a person toward some sort of status, and overall personal achievement. -- I think I'd get good marks on the exam with this explanation, but I don't know if I could find the reference from the class any more.... 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs)
 * Counseling, at least, has lost much of this distinction, although initially I think what much of you said was true and is true to certain forms of counseling, like vocational counseling and the like. Nowadays, licensed counselors are master level clinicians, often working with psychiatric issues such as in hospitals and agencies.  In general, wikipedia needs to be updated to speak to this blurring of the lines.  It seems to me that clinical psychologists often spend much of their time doing testing assessments, and psychaitrists are concerned with prescribing drugs. leontes (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing I have found so far is on this page: http://www.apa.org/governance/CPM/chapter10b.html, under the heading 2007 it talks about terminology, second last topic on the page. This does not quite do the job.  Fremte (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching for and clicking on Counseling in wikipedia redirects to Psychotherapy - these can be very different modalities though they may exist side by side in the minds of some clients and practitioners. For example, Humanistic psychology lists them side by side in section 3. Contrast this with the article at Counseling psychology, which disitnguishes clearly between a similar distinction in Psychology betweencounseling and clinical psychology. But no such clarification occurs within or between the re-direct of counseling to psychotherapy.

There are similar confusions brought about by marriage guidance being re-directed to relationship counseling. These are dissimilar when one is provided in a religious context and that provided without religious affiliation. Likewise couples therapy re-directed to relationship counseling makes little sense without a distinction been drawn between therapy and counseling.

The existence of marriage guidance counsellor as an article about the Monty Python skit is funny but not informative.

On the counselling page, if you click on Marriage and Family counseling you are re-directed to family therapy - the same confusion between counseling and therapy.

Relationship coaching is not an article on its own but it is refered to in section 4 of life coaching. Dating coach used to redirects to personal coaching and these two are related but different and properly belong in the main coaching article. Intimacy coach/ing and marital coach/ing clearly will point to a potential boundary blurring between therapy, counseling and coaching. With coaching increasing its reach to intimate relationships and with the addition of say, marriage mentoring the possibilities for turf wars are limitless.

I have also started this discussion briefly on Talk:Relationship_counseling.--Ziji 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These are good points that somehow need addressing so that the various related pages are consistent, organized to avoid overlap or ambiguity as much as possible, and in line with the most common usage and practice. There's also an issue with overlap between clinical psychology and this page, in terms of psychotherapy content. I've just added some images to here that were (and still are also) on that page. I guess this page needs a section on differences between psychotherapy and counseling/coaching etc EverSince 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello this is a very important issue. I think distinguishing the various types is imortant. Perhaps there is a good typology out there. I'll do some research on this. Devonian Strata 08:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Devonian - have you found a typology?--  Ziji   (talk)  12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Therapist redirect to Therapy rather than Psychotherapy? Usage of the term in the UK is certainly not confined to persons with any medical or scientific qualification Mighty Antar 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Body Psychotherapy
I added Body Psychotherapy to the list of main systems of psychotherapy in the article's introduction section, however, this was reverted by another editor who didn't appreciate this as being a major field. I can only point to that article which does in fact list a considerable number of subordinate schools. So I move that this main direction should be re-included in that list, especially as body psychotherapy otherwise would go completely unmentioned in this article, and that would be an omission which I don't see how can be justified. __meco 12:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Other considerable 'subordinate schools' being present in this article does not justify the addition of anything else - if you don't think the others belong, then remove them as you see fit. Do you have any references for Body Psychotherapy that might suggest it is a main school of thought in psychotherapy? JoeSmack Talk 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * References: you could start with Pierre Janet, move on to Wilhelm Reich and David Boadella, Ida Pauline Rolf and Jon Kabat-Zinn:  . and then go on to the Body Psychotherapy article and take your pick - personally I would take Ron Kurtz and Gerda Boyesen but her page too needs improvement - english citations would help in research. The body psychotherapy page is in need of urgent attention, Rolf and Kabat Zinn were not included, some linked names do not link to an article on the named person eg Ron Kurtz. I have added the mind-body interventions template and put the body psychotherapy page in that template, but much more needs to be done to improve e.g. citations for one. Doing that will increase the authority of a major field position, with which I agree. My earlier coments about distinguishing between counselling and therapy etc also apply between body psychotherapies if you consider the list in the interventions template. Even within a well defined body orientated practice, there are divisions e.g. that in Hakomi between body centred, somatic pychotherapy and experiential psychotherapy. The European Association of Body Psychotherpay is an excellent source to build the case, as is the American Assoc
 * To widen the authority of the field I suggest going into Alice Miller's work for starters, eg her recent book ' ', wherein this quote: Ultimately the body will rebel. Even if it can be temporarily pacified with the help of drugs, cigarettes or medicine, it usually has the last word because it is quicker to see through self-deception than the mind. We may ignore or deride the messages of the body, but is rebellion demands to be heeded because its language is the authentic expression of our true selves and of the strength of our vitality.
 * For a radical bend in the story you could go back to Freud's interest in cocaine (which began on April 24, 1884 and his interest in the nasal reflex neurosis based relationship with Fleiss (who believed that the nose was the centre of all human illness) . . I haven't the time to pursue this any further at the moment, but I will come back to it after I deal with the problems at pre- and peri-natal psychology where the body begins its journey


 * References

field of the citation template to set the display format of the names, rather than to strip the first names from the citation template. Another important reason to keep full names in citation templates is because citation templates generate COinS data for automated citation harvesting by reference management software; with full names included, the data harvested from Wikipedia will be more complete. Think of citation templates as database records: we want the most complete database record possible, and fields such as  (and the other display options parameters) control how the data is displayed in the rendered page.
 * Regarding the citation style of this article, I am partial to displaying full names due to the value of the information that I mentioned above. I think of initials as a convention used to save space (and thereby save on printing costs) in print media, or in content that is published in print and other formats. Wikipedia is not distributed in print, so there is no need to use initials to save on printing costs. Biogeographist (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very reasoned reply. I think your strongest but also weakest argument is providing the most complete database possible. It is generally acknowledged that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Therefore IMHO, it is a mistake to harvest Wikipedia COinS data since it may be subject vandalism or honest mistakes. One really should go back to a reliable secondary source of bibliographic information such as PubMed.  Hence one only needs to harvest database identifiers such as PMID and then using these identifiers, recreate the citation from scratch using the numerous tools available for this purpose. The most important citation information are the links back to the original source.  Second is the title which gives a sense what the citation is about. Third in importance are authors and journal names that gives an impression about the reliability the of source for specialists that are familiar with the field. For the general reader, authors names, whether abbreviated or not, will not be very meaningful. If someone is really interested in particular author, one should go back to the original source where the author affiliation and full name of the author are displayed.
 * I do not have any strong feeling on how the citations are formatted in this particular article, so I will not make any further edits to this article. Boghog (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting counterargument, but there are some weaknesses in what you have said too.
 * First, I would not cite WP:WINARS, as you did, to argue that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to include the most complete citation data possible in citation templates because Wikipedia users should not be using citation data from Wikipedia. That reminds me of the saying, "Don't vote! It only encourages them!", where the voters are Wikipedia editors improving citation data, and "them" are the users of Wikipedia. (OK, this analogy doesn't work—but it's funny.) As an editor, I take pride in my ability to add reliable citation data to Wikipedia, and I believe that the articles wherein I've been able to thoroughly vet the citation data (not this article, obviously!) contain accurate, reliable bibliographic data. Furthermore, the bibliographic data in those articles may be more complete than the corresponding data in PubMed in the case of references for which PubMed does not have, for example, full names, or DOIs. (I've noticed in my research that some PubMed records are missing DOIs for articles that have DOIs on the publisher's site.) WP:WINARS is important to keep in mind, but it doesn't serve as support for the argument that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to include the most complete citation data possible in citation templates.
 * Second, your assertion that Wikipedia users don't care about author names disregards the variability in the subject matter of Wikipedia articles and in the purposes of Wikipedia users. The importance of authors may vary by field: in the humanities, where the subject matter is often personal experiences and opinions, who authored a source is often extremely important; in the empirical sciences, where the subject matter is often impersonal data and models, who authored a source is less important. Psychotherapy straddles the two cultures of the humanities and empirical sciences; many researchers are thoroughly in the empirical science camp, but many clinicians are mostly in the humanities camp, and some people are both researchers and clinicians (by "researchers" I mean large-n researchers; clinicians of course are always doing n=1 research, which can be aggregated into large-n research but typically isn't). Biogeographist (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by for the same reason we already discussed over two years ago above. Biogeographist (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And we are still back to an inconsistent mess of given names in citations. If someone is really interested in the first names of authors in a source, they will follow the links to the original publication.  Boghog (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason to make readers leave Wikipedia to figure out who wrote a cited source. Biogeographist (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Treatments duration
The "Treatments duration" section badly needs a rewrite. It includes no coverage of the relevant literature, and instead provides discusses relapse rates in depression, which is fairly unrelated: "According to the American Psychological Association, experts suggests that those who have had two depressive episodes in recent years, or three episodes over their life, should be treated on an ongoing basis to prevent recurrent depression:[17] At least 60% of individuals who have had one depressive episode will have another, 70% of individuals who have had two depressive episodes will have a third, and 90% of individuals with three episodes will have a fourth episode." Please consider editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Faces (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section is misleading for the reasons stated above, and I removed the section until it can be improved. Biogeographist (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)