Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Because a good number of therapists are dealing with their own dramas, and can't help but introduce their own life experiences and beliefs squarely into the treatment, even when it is clinically detrimental. Though it's generally not advisable to make the focus of therapy the therapist themselves, it happens much more often than most people think it might.

Yeah I don't see a problem with atheists looking for atheist therapists, Christians looking for Christian therapists, etc.

Though I do think there has to be a standard. A therapist believing in the soul shouldn't withhold prescriptions for psychiatric medicine because they think prayer is a cure-all, and a therapist who believes mind=brain shouldn't just prescribe medication when perhaps prayer might be of greater help.

Yeah I don't see a problem with atheists looking for atheist therapists, Christians looking for Christian therapists, etc.

Though I do think there has to be a standard. A therapist believing in the soul shouldn't withhold prescriptions for psychiatric medicine because they think prayer is a cure-all, and a therapist who believes mind=brain shouldn't just prescribe medication when perhaps prayer might be of greater help.

In NYC, where I practice, the only people prescribing medication are psychiatrists and nurse-practicioners, neither of whom engage in traditional talk therapy with the patients. The talk therapy aspect of the treatment is performed by clinical social workers. And some of these clinical social workers are totally comfortable making their own personal lives the subject of the therapy. I was personally trained to offer the client more of a blank slate, and let the client guide the focus of the therapy, but some therapists lead with their personal feelings about God, culture, politics, race, etc. 

There is even a therapist in one of the clinics I'm affiliated who describes himself as a "Christian Therapist", which was shocking to me at first, but eventually I came to realize that there were some clients who preferred it, and he has a very full practice, as such. It's definitely not how I do therapy, but in the end, we are basically bound by two fundamental rules:

1. Don't become romantically involved with your current clients.
2. Don't enter into business agreements with your current clients.

Beyond those two fundamental rules, you are basically free to support clients in whatever way works for you, and for the client. I could speak at length about the issues I see with introducing your beliefs about Christ into therapy, just like I could around making your veganism become a central part of the work. But lots of therapists just do what comes naturally, and aren't particularly steeped in theory. It does bother me a bit when therapists make the treatment about their own beliefs or constantly offer advice to their patients, because I think it potentially detracts from the central goals of therapy, but there's nothing ethically wrong with doing so.

In NYC, where I practice, the only people prescribing medication are psychiatrists and nurse-practicioners, neither of whom engage in traditional talk therapy with the patients. The talk therapy aspect of the treatment is performed by clinical social workers. And some of these clinical social workers are totally comfortable making their own personal lives the subject of the therapy. I was personally trained to offer the client more of a blank slate, and let the client guide the focus of the therapy, but some therapists lead with their personal feelings about God, culture, politics, race, etc. 

There is even a therapist in one of the clinics I'm affiliated who describes himself as a "Christian Therapist", which was shocking to me at first, but eventually I came to realize that there were some clients who preferred it, and he has a very full practice, as such. It's definitely not how I do therapy, but in the end, we are basically bound by two fundamental rules:

1. Don't become romantically involved with your current clients.
2. Don't enter into business agreements with your current clients.

Beyond those two fundamental rules, you are basically free to support clients in whatever way works for you, and for the client. I could speak at length about the issues I see with introducing your beliefs about Christ into therapy, just like I could around making your veganism become a central part of the work. But lots of therapists just do what comes naturally, and aren't particularly steeped in theory. It does bother me a bit when therapists make the treatment about their own beliefs or constantly offer advice to their patients, because I think it potentially detracts from the central goals of therapy, but there's nothing ethically wrong with doing so.

I’m not sure there’s nothing wrong ethically. Are clients in a vulnerable position?

Regarding the whole DMT points I was making, it still fascinates me though that an alarming number of people seem to think this is some sort of scientific consensus when it really isn't (in fact, many skeptical articles, especially today, won't cite DMT anywhere when discussing NDEs). Just because Joe Rogan preaches it like it's somehow a proven fact on his podcast, doesn't mean it is. Too many people just blindly assume Rogan is right on so many things when, from what I've heard, he's been proven to be inaccurate before. 

Meanwhile, time and time again, this moronic DMT explanation makes the rounds whenever the topic of NDEs gets brought up. What I have realised as well is that a lot of skeptical media and comments on NDEs all have something in common: they never cite any actual experts on NDEs. They always just say 'scientists', but they never given any examples of such acclaimed 'scientists' that are actually considered experts on the topic and have conducted their own studies. This is probably due to a combination of ignorance and cognitive bias, but I'd like to think it's because perhaps a few of them know already that nearly all the actual experts don't agree with them, but they somehow fancy themselves experts anyways. 

An example of this trending skeptical explanation is when I across a video on YT (which turned out to be from a 'skeptic') that was debunking this ghost hunter, and of course the comments included the usual cynical militant atheism, scientism and pseudo-skepticism you'd expect to pop up. Comments such as 'James Randi and Houdini debunked all mediums', 'ghost hunters don't understand electromagnetism', 'ghost hunters are all frauds' etc. And unsurprisingly, there was a comment made that got 10 likes parroting said explanation for NDEs that 'it's considered by most scientists to be DMT flooding the brain and are akin to dreams'. And yes, I consider it to be pseudoscientific since there's still no hard evidence and it's yet another example of cherry picking phenomena, and Sam Parnia, as mentioned, has explained already why this explanation doesn't really work. Oh, and it's also a statement that is objectively false. 

But ultimately, I know that likes on comments don't amount to much since they're pretty easy to earn these days. Just say something dramatic, witty, snarky or sciency-sounding, or something that agrees with the post, and you immediately get a bunch of likes on any social media. And 10 likes on a comment that was part of thread replying to another comment definitely isn't something to lose sleep over. They're probably from nearly 2 years ago anyways. 

It's important to note this comment and video in question were misleading when it comes to when they were posted. YouTube seems to claim they were uploaded 'a year ago' at first, but when you check the actual date stamp, they actually date all the way back to 2018! It's kind of impressive to me how comments like these seemingly cropped up during the same year that the Tom Tom Festival video featuring the UVA, which sits at over a million views on YT whereas this video only has a bit over 200 thousand, was released. And of course, more impressive the lengths pseudo-intellectual 'skeptics' will go to in making unproven or inaccurate assertions about phenomena they clearly haven't looked into at all. It doesn't help that YouTube's time markers for when videos and comments are posted are so misleading. That, and YouTube now jumbles up comments so you can't really tell if they were posted in any kind of order. 

But skeptic/militant atheist YT channels really do seem to be losing their steam, with nearly all of them having moved onto things like debunking conspiracy theories and politics now. Their upload schedules also seem to be incredibly slow as well these days, based on the length of times between videos being released (though again, this may be an underestimation). Perhaps this is a (good imo) sign of things to come...

It's important to note this comment and video in question were misleading when it comes to when they were posted. YouTube seems to claim they were uploaded 'a year ago' at first, but when you check the actual date stamp, they actually date all the way back to 2018!

If I recall correctly, the way Youtube works is that a video can be uploaded but kept private so that only  the owner can see it. At some later date, the owner changes the status to 'public', that's when the rest of the world (you and me and everyone else) gets to see it. So a video appearing today might have been uploaded last year. Upload date and publication dates can be different.

If I recall correctly, the way Youtube works is that a video can be uploaded but kept private so that only  the owner can see it. At some later date, the owner changes the status to 'public', that's when the rest of the world (you and me and everyone else) gets to see it. So a video appearing today might have been uploaded last year. Upload date and publication dates can be different.

I assumed the guy uploaded the video and made it public immediately, as most tend to do, especially since this 'armored skeptic' character doesn't upload that often. It said it was 'uploaded' in November 2018, so perhaps it was made visible slightly later in 2018, or early 2019. But most YouTubers don't wait before making something public unless it's, say, a premium series they may want people to pay for. Whatever the case, the comments are still at least a year old at this point, and clearly not based on actual research, just speculative parroting. But yeah, it's ironic YouTube likes to criticise dogmatic 'circlejerk' thinking when the comments section is frequently guilty of such.

I assumed the guy uploaded the video and made it public immediately, as most tend to do, especially since this 'armored skeptic' character doesn't upload that often. It said it was 'uploaded' in November 2018, so perhaps it was made visible slightly later in 2018, or early 2019. But most YouTubers don't wait before making something public unless it's, say, a premium series they may want people to pay for. Whatever the case, the comments are still at least a year old at this point, and clearly not based on actual research, just speculative parroting. But yeah, it's ironic YouTube likes to criticise dogmatic 'circlejerk' thinking when the comments section is frequently guilty of such.

Personally, I never comment on youtube videos, it doesn't seem a productive use of effort. There is such a low signal-to-noise ratio there that even a well-researched informative comment is just going to get lost in the background. Mostly you won't find people such as Sam Parnia engaging in the comments sections either. There are better places to be heard.

Personally, I never comment on youtube videos, it doesn't seem a productive use of effort. There is such a low signal-to-noise ratio there that even a well-researched informative comment is just going to get lost in the background. Mostly you won't find people such as Sam Parnia engaging in the comments sections either. There are better places to be heard.

Well there's many reasons it's commonly regarded as one of the worst comments sections out there. Even YouTubers themselves almost regularly complain about the idiocy of the comments section, especially when the comments only represent a minority of those who have watched the video.

I imagine that new Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma might have something to say on the mentality of YouTubers and commenters on there. It's the same everywhere.

I was naturally baffled by the idiocy of the comments basically bullying this guy who was trying to explain that science probably won't provide and definitive answers regarding life after death, but of course the premissory materialism and scientism followed in the comments. He, for example, said the YouTuber may not be 'looking in the right place' when it comes to ghosts for example, which of course garnered snarky and cynical responses mocking him. This attitude is always so disgusting to see, especially from people who clearly haven't heard of cognitive dissonance and think of the YouTuber in question as some all-knowing genius. 

I also find it amusing when some (such as one commenter) try to undermine the idea by saying 'what about other animals as simple as microorganisms? Do they get an afterlife and have souls?'. I don't understand how this is supposed to undermine the concept despite the fact that there will be no answer that is the same. It's such a weak argument.

I’m not sure there’s nothing wrong ethically. Are clients in a vulnerable position?

When I saw there's nothing wrong ethically, I mean that the NASW (our "governing" association), which distributes a "Book of Ethics", doesn't necessarily frown on personal disclosures or discussions of personal opinions, even about religion or politics, by therapists. It all comes down to how it affects the client. It could be harmful or it could be helpful, and your job as a therapist (if you'e doing the work correctly) is to understand your motivations for disclosing personal information or offering opinions, and assess the impact it is having on clients. Do all therapists engage in that kind of honest reckoning? No.  Are many therapists insecure themselves, and prone to disclosures that are mainly aimed at improving their own moods or their status in the eyes of their patients? Yes.

Personally, I never comment on youtube videos, it doesn't seem a productive use of effort. There is such a low signal-to-noise ratio there that even a well-researched informative comment is just going to get lost in the background. Mostly you won't find people such as Sam Parnia engaging in the comments sections either. There are better places to be heard.

Yeah, agreed...also I don't think this forum should devolve to the point where Youtube comments, random comments from Reddit, and so on are a major part of the content we discuss.

Even in the Skeptiko days I can't recall any skeptics drawing upon these sources, and I doubt they shift academic opinion either.

Even the general public opinion is unlikely to be shaped by this commentary, anymore than a politician should feel confident due to an online poll.