TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,709
Disclaimer and note: This is a rather complex and deep topic so in this megathread I aim to unpack and break down all the talking points, misconceptions, and many claims that pro-psychotherapy (aka pro-therapy) proponents have. Furthermore, while this megathread does have overlap with psychiatry, it isn't the main focus of this megathread, but will have some mentions of such as well, just not as in-depth as that's another topic for another megathread itself and I would rather not over-complicate this already length and complicated topic.
With that said, here are several major points (in large bolded font and underlined) along with some detailed points of this thread that I will be addressing:
Psychotherapy culture and the pervasiveness of such:
The concept of everyone needing psychotherapy and the overpromotion of such practices for even day to day challenges and problems. (The cultural attitude of pro-psychotherapy and such.)
In our present day, or even within the last few decades, it has become increasing common such that everyday people just parrot off and unsolicitedly recommend and bring up psychotherapy to someone when there is some contention, conflict, or disagreement. Not only is that an implication that the person is mentally defective (often inaccurate and offensive), but also rather patronizing and condescending (lecturing) towards the person who only primarily wishes to resolve whatever dispute, problem, or issue that is at hand. In other words, I believe that we as a society should step off of this culture of overpromoting therapy and the perception that it is a panacea to ALL of life's problems! It is NOT and worse yet, there are people who weaponize this tool in order to oppress the people that dissent or otherwise don't agree with them, which is a big problem itself (will be addressed later in this megathread).
The therapy circular loop (unfalsifiable claim) that pro-psychotherapy supporters love to use to discount, dismiss, or otherwise steer a conversation away from the main topic.
More oftenly than not, whenever the suggestion of seek psychotherapy is brought up in a conversation or dialogue, it is often used to suppress or otherwise shut down a person's argument without even addressing it and gives the recipient no opportunity to disprove it and that any claim against such a suggestion often deflects towards "trying another one" and the incorrect assumption that it always works when it doesn't. By then, a conversation has already been severely derailed that the original topic or matter at hand is already long lost.
Furthermore, this erroneous assumption is that the field of psychotherapy and related fields are infallible and unquestionable that it's always the person, patient, or recipient's fault for it not working is a very oppressive and dangerous presumption. This (at least in logical terms) is akin to circular logic and by default circular logic or reasoning is considered fallacious due to the fact that the premise proves the conclusion and conclusion proves the premise. Usually when the conversation becomes this part, there is no other avenue or direction to steer the conversation to as it's terminal and worse yet, it becomes an endless, ever-moving shifting goalpost.
The demonization and vilification of psychotherapy critics and those who question it.
In addition to the pervasive issue of therapy culture, proponents of psychotherapy often shun, silence, and/or otherwise censor and dehumanize critics or dissidents of such fields. When the critics try to come forward to expose the harms of psychotherapy and put it in check as well as bring to light the harms that it does is they are often persecuted. They are silenced into shame, vilified or demonized for even speaking out. This creates another layer of barrier that prevents real victims from seeking justice or even reparations from such harm. Even worse is that it puts psychotherapy and similar fields in an unfalsifiable position that cannot be challenged or even corrected while keeping their victims in the darkness suffering.
There is no better tool for oppressors and tyrants than one that is not only unfalsifiable (or very hard to disprove) and would effectively bypass logic and any other due process while automatically declaring a target unfit to even have due process. This is the problem with the field as it's being commonly used by people who don't agree with another's point of view and it's just a convenient way to dismiss, devalue, or otherwise deem them incapable so as to invalidate the oppositions' point of view. These things not only happen online in various platforms and the Internet in general, but also in real life when interacting with people.
It would be very difficult to affect and see change for such a field if the field itself is fraught with flaws and critics are unable to expose let alone push for meaningful change. As a result, the victims not only go unheard and are swept under the rug (out of society's mind, out of the oppressors' minds, etc.) and the rampant abuse continues to persist throughout time.
Possible solution:
We as a society should not continue to enable and encourage therapy culture as to minimize the concern trolling that many busybodies have. Instead, I believe that society should view psychotherapy as a tool that is fallible and has limitations and flaws and should not by quick to suggest that to people without understanding the situation! What do I mean by this? I mean that if someone is struggling with whatever issue they have (unless it's explicitly emotional stuff that warrants seeing a psychotherapist -or- if they themselves voluntarily request for such services), they should be listened to and at least given the chance to speak their case. One should not immediately jump to conclusions or go to suggest psychotherapy at the first sign of conflict or even signs of difficult or struggle. It is a perversion of services to inappropriately recommend people to go see them and more oftenly than not, it is oftenly used as a way to invalidate others! There are many other solutions that should be explored first, especially pragmatic solutions for pragmatic, real life problems! I believe that modern society has become less about tolerating dissent and critical thinking and are quick to just jump on a misconceived panacea, in which is FAR from a panacea.
Furthermore, to reinforce my points, throughout human history while some form of psychotherapy or such existed for millennia, more often than not, people often thought about practical solutions to practical problems. Humanity has existed for hundreds of thousands of years (or more depending on what one's belief system is but I digress…), and surely they found ways to solve problems without parroting, patronizing, or otherwise dismissing others, and I believe humanity is capable to do such again, if they wish to. Sure, religion played a huge role in early ancient human history, but it doesn't necessarily have to be religion either!
What really happens in a psychotherapy (talk therapy) session:
What psychotherapy (talk therapy) is really about:
As someone who has been involved in the system and had sessions while growing up and even in my adult life (last time being about half a decade or so ago), I can describe the general structure of what really happens in these sessions. (Sure, while there are apologists and defenders who try to push their counter-narrative, that's NOT what this is about!) This segment is merely describing exactly what happens in those sessions and exposing it for what it really is.
An example sample session:
So what actually happens in a session is where the client (or patient) is talking to the psychotherapist and generally it starts off with some small talk like how are you (as an opening), then not long before they get into the session and start discussing the topics with the clients. More oftenly than not, the psychotherapist would be just rebounding and acting as a soundboard towards whatever the client says, like "how do you feel about xyz?" or very limited responses like "Mhm", "Hm", etc. Throughout the interaction, there is always a constant surveillance of what the client says that if triggered a red flag or something that could be actioned on (danger or risk), then the professional will assess and act accordingly. Rarely (almost never, if ever) does a psychotherapist give actual concrete advice or work towards 'solving' the clients' problems, but just merely talking about the clients' feelings and asking the client to do the work themselves (which defeats the purpose of going; if going is just to talk about how one feels about things and vent, then there are better ways to spend one's money or more productive and effective means to go about solving problems!).
In the event that a client says the wrong thing, the client would be assessed and questioned (usually a threat assessment) and is rather interrogative in nature. During such a time it becomes a psychotherapist vs the client and anything that a client says can and will be used against him/her. When it is determined that the client is a danger (a threat), then action would be taken against them (this is where the field has the potential to become carceral), which can range from having to sign a safety plan (an agreement to stay safe and no do anything dangerous and there is likely follow up), all the way towards hospitalization against a client's will (the worst outcome of the ordeal). Assuming there isn't a threat, then the session proceeds as usual.
During the session, there will be gas-lighting and parsing of what the client says. It is generally presumed that the client is broken and is defective and needs to be corrected. Almost at no time does the psychotherapist address the ongoing systemic issues or causes for the symptoms (or things society/they deemed to be issues), and it's always about fixing and getting the client to conform to their standards, their visions, and their interests.
After time is up (however long a session may be), then the conversation just wraps up and then the psychotherapist sends the client on their way and goes about preparing for the next client (rinse and repeat). If the client didn't get anything substantial or get any closer to resolving their issues, the blame is of course placed on the client themselves or at least the fact that the client never found a good 'fit'. It is (almost) never about how the system itself is nor about how society is.
Therefore, in such an example (which is a very general and standard session – there are different ones that vary, but the structure and format is more/less the same with some minute differences.), this shows what really goes on in an actual psychotherapy session. Most of the time, it also involves shaming, gaslighting, and/or making it that the client is the one who is broken and never really addressing the systemic issues that cause the symptoms to begin with.
Other misconceptions and incorrect myths, assumptions of psychotherapy:
The interchanging of terms, psychiatry and psychotherapy (or talk therapy).
It is common in conversations whenever people are referring to the field to interchangeably use them both, however, if one is being technical about them, they are distinct. Psychiatry refers to a branch of medicine that studies the diagnosis and treatments of mental illnesses as well as mental disorders. Psychotherapy (or also referred to as talk therapy) is about the treatment of behavioral and mental conditions through verbal communication and interaction with a 'professional'.
In both fields, regardless of whether one uses either term, they are both carceral in nature, meaning that by default, they already have a power imbalance and are seen as authority figures (think of them as basically like mind cops that have the power to order a detainment of someone who they 'believe' to be a danger to society or to oneself). Just because they are not actual law enforcement officers does not mean that they cannot impinge or have the authority to (temporarily) impinge on the civil liberties of their clients, patients!
Additionally, both fields overlap in such they both address mental illnesses and psychiatry is more focused on the medicinal and drug aspect, hence psychiatrists require medical knowledge and training for their field (they go to medical school), whereas psychotherapists and such would earn an advanced degree as well as be licensed to practice before they start seeing clients. They (psychotherapists) do NOT prescribe medications, but can refer a client to a psychiatrist and vice versa.
Even assuming cost is not a factor (devil's advocate), it is still fraught with (at best) uselessness depending on situation, and potentially harmful at worst!
Very often, people do bring up cost as a factor and that branches off into a discussion about accessibility, but even presuming that cost is not a factor, there are still many other ills with the field. In a world where the cost is not a factor (either the person is not paying it but is subsidized by another party or is offered for free), it isn't always the best nor appropriate solution for people's problems. Even at best, when people are offered such a service for free or at a low cost, it wouldn't necessarily help someone with their problems. Furthermore, it could even exacerbate existing problems, or worse, introduce new problems for said person.
(Consider an example of the flat tire: Logically and rationally speaking, someone with a flat tire isn't going to go towards a mechanic who isn't going to diagnose why their tire is flat and only decides to pump air into it without addressing the cause of the flat (a puncture, bad rim, bad valve stem, etc.. Instead, assuming such a mechanic not only suggests pumping more air or using a different air (instead of oxygen, they used nitrogen or some other gas), people would call that mechanic incompetent and dumb. However, in the case of psychotherapy and such fields, almost nobody ever critiques or calls out the bad practices!)
In other words, even if the cost isn't an issue for people (which it is), the actual kind of 'help' that is provided isn't really useful. Psychotherapy won't put food on the table, psychotherapy isn't going to magically make realistic problems that people face day to day go away! The list goes on… However, coping is not a solution alone to solve life's problems, it is merely just to distract oneself and endure the hardships of life. Of course, this is not referring to people whose intention is to simply 'cope'.
Conclusion:
Overall, this megathread primarily focuses on the flaws and exposes the harm done by psychotherapy, I would want to wrap up this thread by including some other perspective which I would find value. While this megathread primarily exposes all the harms of psychotherapy as well as criticisms of all the ills that happen with it. I do believe there are situations where it can be less harmful or potentially beneficial (if it is applied appropriately), and that will be in the next point.
A concession and middle ground:
Despite the criticisms of the field, yes, there are times where such a suggestion could be appropriate, but culturally and in mainstream, day to day life, it should NOT be the first suggestion nor the ONLY suggestion instead of actively working towards fixing problems, resolving conflicts, and seeking a better solution to whatever problem or issue is at hand. Note: Even with such a middle ground or concession, the most important part is when this "tool or help" is offered voluntarily and not coerced or pushed onto unwilling patients or clients without their consent. In fact, there are even some circles that believe that people who were offered the option of psychotherapy in a non-aggressive, non-compulsory, and non-paternalistic manner would have better outcomes and be more willing to partake in them without feeling forced to do so. They would also be more receptive towards feedback as they are doing so on their own terms. In addition to this, the useful application for such would be when someone is emotionally struggling and they just want to speak to someone to vent, or let off their worries without judgment or consequences, then it would be fair to suggest it to them gently.
(One such example would be where people are struggling emotionally and want to vent, perhaps they have emotions and they want someone to 'help' them process them and not necessarily a trusted person nor friend, then yes in such a case I could see it being appropriate for them to pay someone (by their own volition) to be heard).
Even after writing and putting a lot of effort into this megathread, there will always be people who object or otherwise try to defend and/or justify such things. I cannot convince all of them and that's fine, at least I've made my points and for those who do stick around to read it all, thank you for patience and understanding for such a complex topic. I also hope that it not only sheds light into the problems of such a practice as well as (potential) solutions that could be had to reform the field, or even something entirely different. If I managed to get some people to think, give food for thought, or at least encouraged them to be critical and skeptical of the field, then I've at least succeeded in some capacity. Anyways, I hope this has been helpful and informative for people who read, perhaps others will use this as reference or be able to relate to it and/or at least discuss the topic in more. I made it into a megathread just to keep things in one place and also partly because this is a complex topic that deserves dissecting and breaking it down into more manageable parts to understand.
On a small final note, there may be additional points that are not covered in this megathread as it would be even more exhaustive and tedious to do so, but all the major points have been fleshed out in detail and covered as thoroughly as possible. I will be updating (or even possibly making another version in the future if there are substantial changes in the topic or if some of these things are outdated).
With that said, here are several major points (in large bolded font and underlined) along with some detailed points of this thread that I will be addressing:
Psychotherapy culture and the pervasiveness of such:
The concept of everyone needing psychotherapy and the overpromotion of such practices for even day to day challenges and problems. (The cultural attitude of pro-psychotherapy and such.)
In our present day, or even within the last few decades, it has become increasing common such that everyday people just parrot off and unsolicitedly recommend and bring up psychotherapy to someone when there is some contention, conflict, or disagreement. Not only is that an implication that the person is mentally defective (often inaccurate and offensive), but also rather patronizing and condescending (lecturing) towards the person who only primarily wishes to resolve whatever dispute, problem, or issue that is at hand. In other words, I believe that we as a society should step off of this culture of overpromoting therapy and the perception that it is a panacea to ALL of life's problems! It is NOT and worse yet, there are people who weaponize this tool in order to oppress the people that dissent or otherwise don't agree with them, which is a big problem itself (will be addressed later in this megathread).
The therapy circular loop (unfalsifiable claim) that pro-psychotherapy supporters love to use to discount, dismiss, or otherwise steer a conversation away from the main topic.
More oftenly than not, whenever the suggestion of seek psychotherapy is brought up in a conversation or dialogue, it is often used to suppress or otherwise shut down a person's argument without even addressing it and gives the recipient no opportunity to disprove it and that any claim against such a suggestion often deflects towards "trying another one" and the incorrect assumption that it always works when it doesn't. By then, a conversation has already been severely derailed that the original topic or matter at hand is already long lost.
Furthermore, this erroneous assumption is that the field of psychotherapy and related fields are infallible and unquestionable that it's always the person, patient, or recipient's fault for it not working is a very oppressive and dangerous presumption. This (at least in logical terms) is akin to circular logic and by default circular logic or reasoning is considered fallacious due to the fact that the premise proves the conclusion and conclusion proves the premise. Usually when the conversation becomes this part, there is no other avenue or direction to steer the conversation to as it's terminal and worse yet, it becomes an endless, ever-moving shifting goalpost.
The demonization and vilification of psychotherapy critics and those who question it.
In addition to the pervasive issue of therapy culture, proponents of psychotherapy often shun, silence, and/or otherwise censor and dehumanize critics or dissidents of such fields. When the critics try to come forward to expose the harms of psychotherapy and put it in check as well as bring to light the harms that it does is they are often persecuted. They are silenced into shame, vilified or demonized for even speaking out. This creates another layer of barrier that prevents real victims from seeking justice or even reparations from such harm. Even worse is that it puts psychotherapy and similar fields in an unfalsifiable position that cannot be challenged or even corrected while keeping their victims in the darkness suffering.
There is no better tool for oppressors and tyrants than one that is not only unfalsifiable (or very hard to disprove) and would effectively bypass logic and any other due process while automatically declaring a target unfit to even have due process. This is the problem with the field as it's being commonly used by people who don't agree with another's point of view and it's just a convenient way to dismiss, devalue, or otherwise deem them incapable so as to invalidate the oppositions' point of view. These things not only happen online in various platforms and the Internet in general, but also in real life when interacting with people.
It would be very difficult to affect and see change for such a field if the field itself is fraught with flaws and critics are unable to expose let alone push for meaningful change. As a result, the victims not only go unheard and are swept under the rug (out of society's mind, out of the oppressors' minds, etc.) and the rampant abuse continues to persist throughout time.
Possible solution:
We as a society should not continue to enable and encourage therapy culture as to minimize the concern trolling that many busybodies have. Instead, I believe that society should view psychotherapy as a tool that is fallible and has limitations and flaws and should not by quick to suggest that to people without understanding the situation! What do I mean by this? I mean that if someone is struggling with whatever issue they have (unless it's explicitly emotional stuff that warrants seeing a psychotherapist -or- if they themselves voluntarily request for such services), they should be listened to and at least given the chance to speak their case. One should not immediately jump to conclusions or go to suggest psychotherapy at the first sign of conflict or even signs of difficult or struggle. It is a perversion of services to inappropriately recommend people to go see them and more oftenly than not, it is oftenly used as a way to invalidate others! There are many other solutions that should be explored first, especially pragmatic solutions for pragmatic, real life problems! I believe that modern society has become less about tolerating dissent and critical thinking and are quick to just jump on a misconceived panacea, in which is FAR from a panacea.
Furthermore, to reinforce my points, throughout human history while some form of psychotherapy or such existed for millennia, more often than not, people often thought about practical solutions to practical problems. Humanity has existed for hundreds of thousands of years (or more depending on what one's belief system is but I digress…), and surely they found ways to solve problems without parroting, patronizing, or otherwise dismissing others, and I believe humanity is capable to do such again, if they wish to. Sure, religion played a huge role in early ancient human history, but it doesn't necessarily have to be religion either!
What really happens in a psychotherapy (talk therapy) session:
What psychotherapy (talk therapy) is really about:
As someone who has been involved in the system and had sessions while growing up and even in my adult life (last time being about half a decade or so ago), I can describe the general structure of what really happens in these sessions. (Sure, while there are apologists and defenders who try to push their counter-narrative, that's NOT what this is about!) This segment is merely describing exactly what happens in those sessions and exposing it for what it really is.
An example sample session:
So what actually happens in a session is where the client (or patient) is talking to the psychotherapist and generally it starts off with some small talk like how are you (as an opening), then not long before they get into the session and start discussing the topics with the clients. More oftenly than not, the psychotherapist would be just rebounding and acting as a soundboard towards whatever the client says, like "how do you feel about xyz?" or very limited responses like "Mhm", "Hm", etc. Throughout the interaction, there is always a constant surveillance of what the client says that if triggered a red flag or something that could be actioned on (danger or risk), then the professional will assess and act accordingly. Rarely (almost never, if ever) does a psychotherapist give actual concrete advice or work towards 'solving' the clients' problems, but just merely talking about the clients' feelings and asking the client to do the work themselves (which defeats the purpose of going; if going is just to talk about how one feels about things and vent, then there are better ways to spend one's money or more productive and effective means to go about solving problems!).
In the event that a client says the wrong thing, the client would be assessed and questioned (usually a threat assessment) and is rather interrogative in nature. During such a time it becomes a psychotherapist vs the client and anything that a client says can and will be used against him/her. When it is determined that the client is a danger (a threat), then action would be taken against them (this is where the field has the potential to become carceral), which can range from having to sign a safety plan (an agreement to stay safe and no do anything dangerous and there is likely follow up), all the way towards hospitalization against a client's will (the worst outcome of the ordeal). Assuming there isn't a threat, then the session proceeds as usual.
During the session, there will be gas-lighting and parsing of what the client says. It is generally presumed that the client is broken and is defective and needs to be corrected. Almost at no time does the psychotherapist address the ongoing systemic issues or causes for the symptoms (or things society/they deemed to be issues), and it's always about fixing and getting the client to conform to their standards, their visions, and their interests.
After time is up (however long a session may be), then the conversation just wraps up and then the psychotherapist sends the client on their way and goes about preparing for the next client (rinse and repeat). If the client didn't get anything substantial or get any closer to resolving their issues, the blame is of course placed on the client themselves or at least the fact that the client never found a good 'fit'. It is (almost) never about how the system itself is nor about how society is.
Therefore, in such an example (which is a very general and standard session – there are different ones that vary, but the structure and format is more/less the same with some minute differences.), this shows what really goes on in an actual psychotherapy session. Most of the time, it also involves shaming, gaslighting, and/or making it that the client is the one who is broken and never really addressing the systemic issues that cause the symptoms to begin with.
Other misconceptions and incorrect myths, assumptions of psychotherapy:
The interchanging of terms, psychiatry and psychotherapy (or talk therapy).
It is common in conversations whenever people are referring to the field to interchangeably use them both, however, if one is being technical about them, they are distinct. Psychiatry refers to a branch of medicine that studies the diagnosis and treatments of mental illnesses as well as mental disorders. Psychotherapy (or also referred to as talk therapy) is about the treatment of behavioral and mental conditions through verbal communication and interaction with a 'professional'.
In both fields, regardless of whether one uses either term, they are both carceral in nature, meaning that by default, they already have a power imbalance and are seen as authority figures (think of them as basically like mind cops that have the power to order a detainment of someone who they 'believe' to be a danger to society or to oneself). Just because they are not actual law enforcement officers does not mean that they cannot impinge or have the authority to (temporarily) impinge on the civil liberties of their clients, patients!
Additionally, both fields overlap in such they both address mental illnesses and psychiatry is more focused on the medicinal and drug aspect, hence psychiatrists require medical knowledge and training for their field (they go to medical school), whereas psychotherapists and such would earn an advanced degree as well as be licensed to practice before they start seeing clients. They (psychotherapists) do NOT prescribe medications, but can refer a client to a psychiatrist and vice versa.
Even assuming cost is not a factor (devil's advocate), it is still fraught with (at best) uselessness depending on situation, and potentially harmful at worst!
Very often, people do bring up cost as a factor and that branches off into a discussion about accessibility, but even presuming that cost is not a factor, there are still many other ills with the field. In a world where the cost is not a factor (either the person is not paying it but is subsidized by another party or is offered for free), it isn't always the best nor appropriate solution for people's problems. Even at best, when people are offered such a service for free or at a low cost, it wouldn't necessarily help someone with their problems. Furthermore, it could even exacerbate existing problems, or worse, introduce new problems for said person.
(Consider an example of the flat tire: Logically and rationally speaking, someone with a flat tire isn't going to go towards a mechanic who isn't going to diagnose why their tire is flat and only decides to pump air into it without addressing the cause of the flat (a puncture, bad rim, bad valve stem, etc.. Instead, assuming such a mechanic not only suggests pumping more air or using a different air (instead of oxygen, they used nitrogen or some other gas), people would call that mechanic incompetent and dumb. However, in the case of psychotherapy and such fields, almost nobody ever critiques or calls out the bad practices!)
In other words, even if the cost isn't an issue for people (which it is), the actual kind of 'help' that is provided isn't really useful. Psychotherapy won't put food on the table, psychotherapy isn't going to magically make realistic problems that people face day to day go away! The list goes on… However, coping is not a solution alone to solve life's problems, it is merely just to distract oneself and endure the hardships of life. Of course, this is not referring to people whose intention is to simply 'cope'.
Conclusion:
Overall, this megathread primarily focuses on the flaws and exposes the harm done by psychotherapy, I would want to wrap up this thread by including some other perspective which I would find value. While this megathread primarily exposes all the harms of psychotherapy as well as criticisms of all the ills that happen with it. I do believe there are situations where it can be less harmful or potentially beneficial (if it is applied appropriately), and that will be in the next point.
A concession and middle ground:
Despite the criticisms of the field, yes, there are times where such a suggestion could be appropriate, but culturally and in mainstream, day to day life, it should NOT be the first suggestion nor the ONLY suggestion instead of actively working towards fixing problems, resolving conflicts, and seeking a better solution to whatever problem or issue is at hand. Note: Even with such a middle ground or concession, the most important part is when this "tool or help" is offered voluntarily and not coerced or pushed onto unwilling patients or clients without their consent. In fact, there are even some circles that believe that people who were offered the option of psychotherapy in a non-aggressive, non-compulsory, and non-paternalistic manner would have better outcomes and be more willing to partake in them without feeling forced to do so. They would also be more receptive towards feedback as they are doing so on their own terms. In addition to this, the useful application for such would be when someone is emotionally struggling and they just want to speak to someone to vent, or let off their worries without judgment or consequences, then it would be fair to suggest it to them gently.
(One such example would be where people are struggling emotionally and want to vent, perhaps they have emotions and they want someone to 'help' them process them and not necessarily a trusted person nor friend, then yes in such a case I could see it being appropriate for them to pay someone (by their own volition) to be heard).
Even after writing and putting a lot of effort into this megathread, there will always be people who object or otherwise try to defend and/or justify such things. I cannot convince all of them and that's fine, at least I've made my points and for those who do stick around to read it all, thank you for patience and understanding for such a complex topic. I also hope that it not only sheds light into the problems of such a practice as well as (potential) solutions that could be had to reform the field, or even something entirely different. If I managed to get some people to think, give food for thought, or at least encouraged them to be critical and skeptical of the field, then I've at least succeeded in some capacity. Anyways, I hope this has been helpful and informative for people who read, perhaps others will use this as reference or be able to relate to it and/or at least discuss the topic in more. I made it into a megathread just to keep things in one place and also partly because this is a complex topic that deserves dissecting and breaking it down into more manageable parts to understand.
On a small final note, there may be additional points that are not covered in this megathread as it would be even more exhaustive and tedious to do so, but all the major points have been fleshed out in detail and covered as thoroughly as possible. I will be updating (or even possibly making another version in the future if there are substantial changes in the topic or if some of these things are outdated).
