OROne of the most fundamental aspects that every psychology professional must delve into is the critical analysis of various articles related to our area of work. Personally, I am fortunate to be taking the (Ítaca Formación, Córdoba), through which both my classmates and I are having and taking advantage of the opportunity to develop skills of all kinds under the supervision of its teachers, who They provide a guide whose value is indisputable. Our online internship tutor, José Olid (), suggested that we read and analyze two articles published in Psyscience precisely in order to work on our critical thinking: on the one hand, by Sergio García Morilla and, on the other, by Clotilde Sarrió. What I present below is, first of all, a summary of the main ideas defended by each author, followed by a presentation of which arguments I consider to be correct or, on the contrary, fallacious, to finish by detailing my own conclusions as follows: as objective as possible.
To begin with, in the article The bad science of Gestalt therapy We can find a summary of the main arguments used to demonstrate the supposed ineffectiveness of TG, among which the following are cited:
- Existence of a small number of RCTs that are also of poor quality (samples that are too small, they do not focus on all the variables involved, it is not demonstrated that it works better than placebo, etc.)
- Inability to specify the methodology used throughout the therapy, in addition to the lack of protocolized treatments.
-
Questionable validity of the therapeutic model that supports it, based on behavioral theories not supported by the scientific community.
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
-
Ambiguous and subjective object of intervention.
In short, the idea is defended that TG should be considered a pseudotherapy, since due to the deficiencies previously exposed it has not been proven to be effective for the treatment of any type of disorder or psychological problem and most of the evidence to which we We can refer that they try to demonstrate that they do work come from individual cases that have not been investigated using the scientific method.
The studies presented that support the effectiveness of TG do not have concrete scientific data to support such a conclusion.
Firstly, I consider the scarcity of studies that support the real effectiveness of TG to be decisive. It is not only relevant that the samples used have been too small so that the results cannot be significant and generalizable, but also the fact that they only highlight what the defenders of Gestalt are interested in, ignoring the rest of the data that, If they were taken into account, they would contradict the achievements supposedly achieved. Likewise, it strikes me that a study was carried out with people who “considered themselves depressed”, since a limit is not established between pathological and non-pathological and, therefore, it is not possible to know to what extent the techniques that were used worked thanks to their own effectiveness or because no such depressive state truly existed. In short, the studies presented that support the effectiveness of TG do not have concrete scientific data to support such a conclusion.
On the other hand, the fact that TG lacks specific principles on which to base itself when carrying out a therapeutic intervention also calls into question its validity since, in its desire to combine ideas from different psychological currents in order to enrich their own work model, in the end they end up using techniques and strategies that are mostly without scientific basis and that even become incompatible. The problem does not lie, therefore, in the implementation of different types of techniques from other models, but in the absence of a set of specific principles that guide the therapeutic process and through which the object of the intervention is left free. of ambiguous interpretations.
However, I consider that the author falls into the ad verecundiam fallacy (fallacy of authority, consists of appealing to the respect or prestige of a person to support an argument) when resorting to the deontological code to emphasize the argument that the TG does not adhere to the idea of what a psychologist must do to practice the profession in the most appropriate way possible. Thus, this conclusion is defended based on what has been published by an authority body, in this case the College of Psychologists.
The problem does not lie, therefore, in the implementation of different types of techniques from other models, but in the absence of a set of specific principles that guide the therapeutic process.
Regarding the article Gestalt therapy is neither pseudoscience nor bad science., it stands out that the author agrees with the fact that the defenders of TG have not bothered to carry out studies that scientifically support its validity. However, he attributes this decision to not having wanted to be linked to a method that only takes into account what is directly observable or measurable, postulates that are totally contrary to the humanistic line of said therapy and therefore, if they had been subjected to evaluation, they would have been undervalued. the results obtained. Furthermore, the difference between “validation” and “valid” is emphasized, since having scientific endorsement does not necessarily determine the ineffectiveness of the rest of the therapies that are not supported by it.
On the other hand, it is alleged that the use of different techniques from other types of therapies by TG is not a sufficiently consistent argument to classify this current as pseudoscience, since it is not an exclusive practice of the same. and, in fact, it is an example of the heterogeneity of criteria that enrich the discipline. Likewise, the credibility of psychology professionals is in danger if we begin to question the work of our own colleagues in relation to the rest of the disciplines.
Likewise, he criticizes the fact that the scientific method is held on a pedestal and is popularly considered synonymous with absolute truth, when there are works whose results, even if they comply with all the requirements that said method imposes, are also seen as questionable. Furthermore, it is alleged that today interventions of different kinds are carried out that work even without knowing the mechanism of action that promotes their success, establishing a connection with the legitimate use of TG in the absence of scientific work that supports it.
In short, the author questions the idea that CBT is the only one that works as it is validated by the scientific method, expressing her discontent not only with the popular belief that everything that does not meet its criteria does not have any type of of value regardless of the results achieved, but also with the rest of the professionals who disqualify the postulates of the TG instead of enriching and learning from each other.
From my perspective, it is important to keep in mind that the fact of validating a specific therapy is not a guarantee that it is the only one that leads to beneficial results for the person and, consequently, it is not a sufficient reason to completely reject another type. of practices that are not yet supported by as many studies as CBT is. Likewise, the plurality of techniques used in TG does not have to be synonymous with malpractice. In fact, different psychological currents use tools from different sources and that does not mean they are subject to criticism. Finally, I agree with the author that the scientific method is not perfect in its execution and that there are aspects of it that should be reconsidered in order to ensure completely reliable results for any type of therapy. However, in my opinion Clotilde Sarrió uses a large number of fallacious arguments to defend her ideas, among which we can mention the following:
Ad hominem fallacy: at the beginning of the article we can see how the author tries to discredit not so much the arguments presented in The bad science of Gestalt Therapybut to the person who wrote it, alleging that considering TG a pseudoscience could only be understood “on the basis of an obsessive rejection, an absolute ignorance of TG, a boastful arrogance of believing oneself in possession of the truth, or also to the frequent vice of generalization based on ignorance.”
Ad verecundia fallacy: The author names various well-known personalities in the world of TG with the aim of convincing the reader that this is not, by any means, a pseudoscience.
Ad ignorantiam fallacy: Although TG hardly has any studies that scientifically demonstrate its effectiveness, the author argues that “the failure to demonstrate the effectiveness of a therapeutic procedure does not imply that it is ineffective and even less a pseudoscience.” Thus, she tries to support her argument based on the fact that the opposite has not been proven.
Fallacy of avoiding the issue: the author resorts to certain arguments to defend her ideas that until then had not been questioned. For example, at one point he states that the worst thing that can happen to psychology professionals is that we go to war among ourselves, running the risk of having our work called into question even more, in an attempt to make people reflect. critics of the TG by means of an argument that had not been questioned before.
tu quoque fallacy: since the scientific method “is a method susceptible to fallibility, subjectivities in its interpretation, manipulation and submission to interests outside of science”, it makes no sense to accuse the TG of having questionable effectiveness because it is not supported by sufficient studies.
Special pleading fallacy: when it is alleged that TG does not adhere to current scientific methodology because it works with such deep aspects of the human being that, otherwise, would be impossible to treat, an allusion is being made to its “special sensitivity” that would make it difficult its understanding to all those who do not make an effort to understand it. It is understood, therefore, that those who do not assume the postulates of therapy are not capable of internalizing the arguments in favor of it, since they do not have a sufficient level of knowledge.
As a summary, I agree with some ideas that support the TG but at the same time it seems to me that Clotilde Carrió’s article is written out of anger and resentment and, despite trying to respond to the criticisms expressed by Sergio García , I conclude that the vast majority of the arguments used lack sufficient foundation to convince the reader. For its part,…