Thanks for this, I found it an interesting overview.
I would note that I found the title a bit confusing. I would have suggested a more descriptive name, maybe something like “Modalities of Psychological Disciplines” or something more to the point.
Yeah, I know the title is a bit vague, but Modalities are pretty specific and only like 1⁄3 of the post if that focuses on them. I’ve thought of alternative titles, like “Change the Frame, Change the Problem,” but that’s pretty vague too, and nothing feels like it fits better.
It’s probably too late to change the title of this, but I’d press back against that a bit.
To me, the “Philosophy of X” typically refers to an entire academic field of study. Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Psychology, which is a distinct thing.
My guess is that this wasn’t your intention, but calling this “Philosophy of Therapy” could be read as you asserting that this post represents an overview or beginning of a similar field.
I could imagine the naming being fine on your blog, but LessWrong is quite big. If I were to point someone to the “Philosophy of Therapy”, I’d expect something different, and think they would too.
Since there’s currently no academic field of study on therapy as a whole, I would argue that the contents of the post would be a reasonable starting point in forming one, or at least that it covers a lot of the same material (what therapy strives to do, what the base assumptions are, the various different theories of change that different therapy schools hold, setting out a system of classifying modalities, etc). I don’t think the post meets the rigor for a published paper, and such an academic field ideally would be focusing on studying effectiveness of each philosophy/modality, but it’s not unrelated to what I imagine a hypothetical Philosophy of Therapy field to focus its attention on.
If you disagree, could you say a bit more about what you would expect such a post using the name in that context to contain?
Thanks for this, I found it an interesting overview.
I would note that I found the title a bit confusing. I would have suggested a more descriptive name, maybe something like “Modalities of Psychological Disciplines” or something more to the point.
Glad to hear it!
Yeah, I know the title is a bit vague, but Modalities are pretty specific and only like 1⁄3 of the post if that focuses on them. I’ve thought of alternative titles, like “Change the Frame, Change the Problem,” but that’s pretty vague too, and nothing feels like it fits better.
It’s probably too late to change the title of this, but I’d press back against that a bit.
To me, the “Philosophy of X” typically refers to an entire academic field of study. Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Psychology, which is a distinct thing.
My guess is that this wasn’t your intention, but calling this “Philosophy of Therapy” could be read as you asserting that this post represents an overview or beginning of a similar field.
I could imagine the naming being fine on your blog, but LessWrong is quite big. If I were to point someone to the “Philosophy of Therapy”, I’d expect something different, and think they would too.
Since there’s currently no academic field of study on therapy as a whole, I would argue that the contents of the post would be a reasonable starting point in forming one, or at least that it covers a lot of the same material (what therapy strives to do, what the base assumptions are, the various different theories of change that different therapy schools hold, setting out a system of classifying modalities, etc). I don’t think the post meets the rigor for a published paper, and such an academic field ideally would be focusing on studying effectiveness of each philosophy/modality, but it’s not unrelated to what I imagine a hypothetical Philosophy of Therapy field to focus its attention on.
If you disagree, could you say a bit more about what you would expect such a post using the name in that context to contain?