For the first three years I was on Usenet, I posted
non-anonymously
and never anonymously. I also never posted x-no-archive, thus an
excellent record exists of my Internet behavior (and is contrary to the
description offered by several of my malicious opponents). My
Internet
behavior (except for a VERY few appropriate e-mails) was totally limited
to Usenet posts.
It turns out that the complete history of ALL my posts (all of
his posts made when I was NOT _** legitimately** _ anonymous) may be reviewed
by doing a groups.google.com advanced search, looking for the following
email addresses. Yep, when posting non-anonymously (as I did for my first
several years on Usenet), I posted using only 10 *VALID* email addresses. PLUS,
I SIGNED most of his posts when not using my most familiar screen name,
Cognitee. (This sure is not what one hears about Brad -- from the fraudulent
liars, aka 'clinical' psychologists.)
I have made the search of the history easy for you by providing links
to each part of the catalog of my posts..
Decide for yourself how "bad" or how "good" I am. It is the early
history of this newsgroup and will explain how and why it is run
by hoodlums and proven fans of hoodlums today. It will explain
the censorship and unethical activity of John Price, Dan Rogers,
and other sppm moderators. I encourage all to explore the links
provided just below on this web page and read some of my good
work (before I was driven from this newsgroup by thugs). The fact
that I was stalked/harassed by psychologists telling unsubstantiated
lies and repeating them in a stalking and harassing manner will also
be clear. Anyhow, the "myth of Brad" is easy to explore. I am
completely on the record and never posted x-no-archive NOR ever
"nuked" my post. Less than a handful were ever cancelled by me.
For a post where the real facts of the situation were described
(see: <good_brad-0307981528000001@ts005d25.min-mn.concentric.net> )
The following is a list of valid email addresses I used and all
I ever used until recent years when I have had to post anonymously,
if at all. THE LIST:
psycheth@imt.net
spanky@imt.net
Cognito2@aol.com
(these and the good_brad posts account for the vast majority of my posts)
Incognee@aol.com
Cognitee@aol.com
brad@future.net
bradj@future.net
good_brad@hotmail.com
Because there seems to be a limit to the number of results Google
returns,
here are some additional links (newest to oldest & other than what you
get
with the first good_brad link above):
Additional
link to good_brad posts #1
Additional
link to good_brad posts #2
Additional
link to good_brad posts #3
Additional
link to good_brad posts #4
Additional
link to good_brad posts #5
e1cd2p3@aol.com
jess@future.net
(Unfortunately NOT all forgeries could be excluded -- but they are relatively
few in number,
during this period of time.)
Explanations for valid email address changes:
NOW Let me tell everyone *** WHY *** I changed e-mail addresses a number of
times over the last three years.:
* I went from brad@imt.net to another imt.net address (either
spanky@imt.net OR psycheth@imt.net) due to mail bombing abuse
(people signed me up for weird busy mailing lists I could not get off of
including some "vampire" lists). There was one other address switch with
this service due to abuse ALSO. I went from spanky@imt.net to
psycheth@imt.net (or maybe the other way around) due to mail bombing and
abuse.
* I went from the imt.net address to a future.net address, because I moved
from one state to another.
* Similar to the situation described in the first "bullet", I went from
brad@future.net to an e-mail address I currently have due to
harassment and abuse in e-mail to me.
* At one time I had service from AOL, but they were so bombarded with
false claims that they could not take time to investigate that they
dropped me on a technicality [snip]
I
AM GUILTY OF ABSOLUTELY ** NO **
NOTABLE OR SIGNIFICANT WRONG-
DOING OF ANY KIND AND NO EVIDENCE
HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED TO THE
CONTRARY. MY OPPONENTS HAVE
FREQUENTLY LIED AND INDICATED I
HAVE DONE SIGNIFICANT WRONGS, BUT
THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSE AND
(AGAIN) *** WITHOUT
EVIDENCE ***.
Here is a brief version of some of the Major Views I have
express on the Internet.
(These views are backed by giants in the Counseling and Clinical
Psychology
Fields, including Allen Ivey (U Mass) and
Alvin Mahrer (APA Distinguished Psychologist Award Winner)
SCIENCE FAQ ON THE STATE OF THE 'SCIENCE' (or LACK THEREOF) IN
PSYCHOTHERAPY
See http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm for more info. on the
topics below (this page is equivalent to the index.htm page).
The Answers to Science FAQs on Psychotherapy (below) will describe in
detail why the following brief summary statement is as true today as it has ever been:
"After you match people for everything except psyc training, there is no
evidence psychologists are better at ANY noteworthy human skill or
activity. This is an absolute fact. What they have are meaningless
credentials, empirically speaking."
All the information in the FAQ below is completely current and accurate. It is
as true today as it has ever been, perhaps more so since the psychotherapy
field continues to pretend to science and operate in a fraudulent way. All
the information in the 2 links referred to is also completely factual
and accurate.
The science FAQ below describes MAJOR issues and questions that
are essential for the foundation of any science of psychotherapy, but
which have not been dealt with or adequately addressed in any way by the
profession. The issues are as important as ever and nothing is being
done to rectify the situation. There can be no real foundation for
psychotherapy or any efficient advancement until and unless these issues
are dealt with. The Amer. Psychol. Assoc. actively avoids dealing with any
of these
questions in any reasonable, proper way.
Issue 1, Regarding who are good counselors (cute title for issue):
"We can't 'Just Go With The Best' UNTIL We can
Determine what CONSTITUTES "the Best" and make sure we know where to
concentrate training to make "THE Best" otherwise we won't really have
the best and won't really get the best. Okay ?"
[Let me deal with your confusion from my title (above) by trying to
state the issue still briefly,
but more simply: If you don't know what good peer counselors can do or
what they can easily be trained to do and handle, you will not know
where you really need SPECIALLY trained (long trained) individuals or
the problems that they especially need to be trained for.
Trying for ten
words or less: "If you don't make comparisons with regular good people,
you don't know what you got." (scientifically speaking) (Sorry, 15 words.)]
OK, Let's take a look at this specific issue in a little more detail:
A major set of FOUNDATION research studies for the
counseling/"therapy" field has not yet been done. AND indeed, ONLY 3
CONTROLLED studies (the last in 1979 !) have been done comparing the
effects of counseling from professionals *with* counseling from "other
reasonable helpers" (with no professional grad. training). THIS, in
spite of the fact that these best studies in the area essentially show
that other REASONABLE helpers do as well for arguably a broad range of
problems. These studies, at the same time, indicate the other helpers
are an ethical comparison group, having been found *good* for a broad
range of problems for which counseling is most often sought. More
recently much research shows peer counselors in colleges to be VERY
helpful (though their performance is NOT directly compared to that of
professional helpers in these studies).
ANYWAY, these studies are NEEDED to show where professionals ARE
really needed AND where treatments need to be developed (as is, this
situation REMAINS VERY UNCLEAR). These studies might well also indicate
the desirability of other mental health care provider roles (like well
selected and well-trained peer counselors and/or more extensively
trained paraprofessionals).
Now to the "ethics" matter (the first defense of the many backing the
status quo in the field): Not only have other reasonable helpers been
shown effective for a broad range of problems in past studies, BUT ALSO:
"other helpers" (peer counselors or "paras"), used as a comparison group
to professionals (professionals who are licensed & grad.-trained), would
ETHICALLY only have to be NO WORSE than the NO TREATMENT groups (or
waitlist control groups) used today OR NO WORSE than the placebo
controls used today for the study to be considered ethical. *AS WITH*
the types of studies now done, clients treated by peer counselors OR
"paras" could be offered professional care AFTER the study. (Today
waitlist people wait up to around 3 months for treatment -- they just
wait until the other exactly equivalently disturbed group is treated.)
AGAIN: Without these studies we do NOT KNOW where professionals are
really needed or most needed. Areas where treatment developments are
most needed are not being identified. (I hope readers appreciate these
and other LIKELY negative effects ON CLIENTS of an inexcusable LACK of
work in certain, basic areas of FOUNDATION RESEARCH.) Also, a
reasonable, delineated mental health care SYSTEM (with a variety of
helpers or at least specializations) is NOT being developed. IT REALLY
CAN'T BE FROM ONE STANDPOINT: *BASIC FOUNDATION* RESEARCH IS
*NECESSARY*. There are many things about which one cannot conclude
without clear research.
---------
Issue #2: (not so cute title): "If you want to have a good
classification system (and you MUST if you want to be any kind of
scientist), THEN you must do work on making your diagnostic (or
classification) system understandable. You must at the most basic level
set up definitions so people show agreement on diagnoses (or formal
classification)" This requires research DEVELOPING interrater
reliability SURROUNDING the specific diagnostic criteria (PER SE) --
i.e. as written -- between each "revision" of said criteria. This is
rarely done.
Regarding the therapists' major guide for objectivity, the Diagnostic
and Stat. Manual of the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc.: It is without question
that one could develop criteria-through-procedures that show MUCH better
inter-rater agreement than the DSM. The last time the Amer. Psychia.
Assoc. published and reported COLLECTED reliability data (within the DSM
itself (DSM III)), there was only a r=.7 correlation between clinicians
AS TO WHETHER a client had a disorder in the Mood Disorder GROUP (or
NOT). SIMILARLY, there was an equally low level of agreement on whether
a client had a disorder in an Anxiety CATEGORY (or NOT) (quite
inadequate!!). (Often there is disagreement on whether a disorder is an
Anxiety Disorder or a Mood Disorder.) AND this is all beside the issue
that today's "diagnoses" are possibly good for very little and possibly
often more destructive than constructive. VERY VERY little work was done
investigating the inter-rater reliability of criteria *between* DSM-III
and the meeting of the DSM-IV committee to define "new" diagnostic
"options." In fact, only 14 of the top 40 diagnoses had ANY inter-rater
reliability data generated on their criteria in the 15 years since
DSM-III (source: DSM-IV Sourcebook, Vol. 2). Judging by the "new" ICD-10
criteria and their inter-rater reliabilities, we can expect the DSM-IV
diagnostic criteria to show little better inter-rater reliabilities than
DSM-III (the DSM-IV criteria were made to be very similar and consistent
with ICD-10).
To comfort us in some way a number of therapists say "we don't like
diagnoses either." A GOOD RETORT:
I don't care about diagnoses, but you still need good definitions
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES YOU USE within an agency to have the minimum
science standard -- decent inter rater agreement. Otherwise you cannot
discuss anything clearly with any others (you can't communicate). I am
in no way comforted by the INDIVIDUAL therapist making his decisions in
idiosyncratic ways, with way too little accountability. (It is a
principle: power corrupts. Without accountability or communication you
will have an inappropriate degree of power BECAUSE it is in no way
appropriately negotiated, sanctioned, or scientifically monitored.)
I am quite aware that "therapists" often do not use the DSM. They VERY
often do not use ANY proven diagnostic OR CLASSIFICATION system. They
think what ever they want and do whatever they want. I can't believe
that people can possibly be given doctorates in this area (esp.
given I have well shown that clinicians are in NO real sense whatsoever
"science-practitioner" -- in NO sense at all).
See http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm for
more
(this page is equivalent to the index.htm page).
------
Issue #3: (not cute at all) :
"Claims of Being "Science-Practitioners" are Fraudulent,
Misleading and Scientifically Unethical"
People of science should do the main basic science practices when and
where they can (e.g. in their own local agencies or professional
group).
To be a "science-practitioner" you must do some science practice, not
just read science (or in this case read a hodgepodge of poor science and
speculatively "extrapolate").
To be a "science-practitioner" you must clearly and regularly engage in
some science procedure. Extrapolating from studies done in the
irony tower is NOT practicing science. In fact, it is doing NOTHING
special OR professional at all. Such a person is acting just as a lay
reader of science and unless the practitioner uses the results of the
single study (or much more rare, a study program)
*directly* and in a controlled manner, he is only speculating.
In NO substantial way is their any truth to the claim that clinical
psychologists, etc. are science practitioners. Clinical
psychologists do not have the discipline to establish good operational
definitions WITHIN AGENCIES (e.g. for defining (i.e. diagnosing)
personality disorders). NO PROGRESS CAN BE MADE UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES (and many other similar problems-in-science cases).
Because they are not scientists they cannot progress OR really work
well together. They cannot self-evaluate. DSM criteria are so far from
good operational definitions, I would not dignify them with the word
"criteria." I know of no counselor or agency that has made any credible
attempt at scientific respectability (or any that could be argued to be
doing such). It is simply pitiful and inexcusable. Practice, as is, is
actually an abuse of power and taking advantage of vulnerable
populations. Someday such practice may result in lawsuits. Using
diagnostic procedures that do lead to excellent inter-rater agreement is
certainly possible today, not only at some level but at a useful level.
At present counselors and therapists don't even respect each other.
Since I am trained in psychology myself I know what is meant when it is
said that therapists are "trained in scientific methods." Trouble is
they engage in no regular (much less integral) scientific PROCEDURES in
the normal or typical conduct of their work. This is true to such a
degree it is unacceptable. And it is true of all therapists I know of.
Again, their failure to develop operational definitions of personality
disorders that at least show excellent within agency inter-rater
reliability is an excellent illustration. There is correspondingly a
lack of proven agreement on the application of procedures (loosely called
"therapies") and on the assessment of results IN actual practice. The
field itself recognizes deficiencies in how "therapies" are considered
"validated." (Obviously with this problem most treatments should NOT be
termed "therapies.")
The fact that the idea of scientific procedure INTEGRAL in a therapist's
daily work makes no sense to many therapists is not surprising. THERE
ARE NONE!! I would hope you could see a problem there. While
psychologists hear a lot about scientific methods, they do not learn to
use them in an integrated and realistic way (even in the "ivory tower"). No
wonder when the controls of grad. school are gone and no others exist
(as it is with most therapists), even the mock "science" behavior no longer
occurs.