The article critiques various scientifically dubious interventions marketed for mental health, highlighting brainspotting as a prime example. It discusses the effectiveness of current treatments, which while generally safe, are inadequate for many patients due to limited understanding of mental illnesses' neural mechanisms. This knowledge gap leads to the promotion of pseudoscientific methods, including brainspotting, which lacks plausible neural underpinning. Such interventions can deceive practitioners, particularly those with insufficient neuroscientific training, and highlights the challenge of distinguishing between evidence-based practices and pseudoscientific claims.
Current treatments for mental illness are generally safe, but they are rarely completely effective, creating a void filled by pseudoscientific methods.
Brainspotting lacks plausible mechanisms in addressing psychopathology and promotes an intervention method impossible for therapists to implement.
Collection
[
|
...
]