Hi! I need you to respond to this discussion board thread

The marking rubric for this assignment is as follows:
"Graded Discussion Rubric 2024
Graded Discussion Rubric 2024
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeContribution to dialogue
You should make multiple post that contribute to a dialogue. Posts should respond to posts already on the thread and connect, critique, extend or elaborate on the posts it follows. Posts should contain on-topic content – addressing the discussion questions and/or replying to another student to extend the discussion. Posts should reference or continue content already in a thread.
Posts should not be an “essay” that blocks other responses. Posts should not “broadcast” ideas while ignoring the flow of conversation in the thread.
Tone must be respectful.
40 to >31.98 Pts
HD
Multiple posts connect intelligently and respectfully with conversation and makes an original contribution that progresses the dialogue. Acknowledges/references persons and ideas in the discussion
31.98 to >27.98 Pts
D
Posts make relevant and meaningful contributions that clearly connect with the discussion. Shows some original content/thinking.
27.98 to >23.98 Pts
C
Posts make relevant contributions to discussion, clearly connecting with previous posts or ideas in the thread.
23.98 to >19.98 Pts
P
Post(s) is relevant/on topic.
19.98 to >0 Pts
N
No post or posts fail connect and contribute to the thread.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeLinks to unit content, source citation
Your posts should make links to or cite specific ideas in assigned readings, lectures, and other lesson content relevant to the discussion. You do not need to agree with the course material but posts should integrate or critique lesson content. Marks may also be awarded if the post cites/links relevant sources outside the unit (e.g., news media, academic article) which contribute to the discussion.
20 to >15.99 Pts
HD
Excellent selection of relevant and appropriate concepts/sources to illustrate or support points. Concepts/sources are well understood and correctly applied. Sources/citations are clear.
15.99 to >13.99 Pts
D
Good selection of relevant sources, although there may be better selections for some areas. Post indicates concepts are generally correctly understood. Source/citation is clear.
13.99 to >11.99 Pts
C
Sources used are generally appropriate/relevant. One or two important concepts may have been overlooked or misinterpreted. Source/citations usually given.
11.99 to >9.99 Pts
P
Sources/concepts used are of marginal relevance. Over-reliance on one key source. Source misunderstood.
9.99 to >0 Pts
N
No post. Little or no reference to sources or concepts from the unit
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCritical thinking
Your posts should collectively display integration, comparison, and/or analysis and critical thinking about the unit content; logically connect ideas across the discussion thread with lesson aims or broader unit themes; and provide critical evaluation of concepts raised in the discussion.
40 to >31.99 Pts
HD
Outstanding evaluation of source material/theory/data. Appropriate framework has been selected and thinking shows sensitivity to complexities of the issues. Strong synthesis/connections show deep understanding of concepts/argument.
31.99 to >27.99 Pts
D
Good evaluation of source material/theory/data. Consistent logical approach or use of appropriate framework. Synthesis/connections shows developed understanding of concepts/argument.
27.99 to >23.99 Pts
C
Sound evaluation of source material/theory/data. Logical arguments or appropriate frameworks applied. Synthesis/connections evidence a developing understanding of concepts/argument.
23.99 to >19.99 Pts
P
Some evaluation of source material/theory/data and connections with discussion. Generally coherent/logical argument. Synthesis/connections show some understanding of key concepts.
19.99 to >0 Pts
N
No post. Little or no critical thinking.
40 pts
Total points: 100"

"Thread 2. Thinking about what you know of the therapeutic approaches of Freud, Rogers, and behavioral therapy, which do you think has had the most influence on psychological therapy in general and why?

Which approach is most scientific now; and do you think therapy needs to have a scientific basis?

Collapse discussion thread from Benedict Williams
Hide 25 Replies, 9 Unread
Hide 25 Replies, 9 Unread
Reply to post from Benedict WilliamsReply
Like post from Benedict Williams LikeLike count: 0
Mark as unreadMark as unread
DG
Dennis Green
Edited 23 Sep 13:47

Reply from Dennis Green
Hi guys, just some thoughts on this interesting topic.

If I were to put myself in the client's seat with a Psychoanalytic or hardline Behavioral therapist, it seems I would either find myself dealing with a range of intractable influences buried deep within me, or mulling over the antecedents of my behaviours and seeking ways to reverse-engineer their outcomes. Either way I may become trapped in a reductive, recursive loop that strips me of my autonomy... Am I the product of my barely-discernible subconscious..? Am I the sum total of my behaviours and conditioning..? Or, am I a bit of both..? But if my therapist were to inject some Carl Rogers into the mix, the dimensions of my self-inquiry would become entirely different. I am now afforded unconditional positive regard and agency to explore a growth mindset as the author of my own destiny, and to become more than the sum of my parts or my past. If my Rogerian therapist also employs a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) approach, my self-inquiry becomes even more focused and actionable. I begin to identify internal & external stimuli (thoughts, emotions - people, places, etc.) that predispose my undesired lifestyle or behavioural outcomes, and I then seek to manipulate these precursor variables to create positive change in my life. I am now able to formulate specific hypotheses for change, and in this sense I become my own unique psychological experiment. With the help of my CBT Rogerian I can now conduct a self-experiment based on experiential evidence and use empirical data to refine and to validate my hypotheses. When results can be determined or otherwise from actual outcomes in my life and confirmed by my independent & objective therapist, this unique experimental case study and form of therapeutic methodology has, I believe, some claims to scientific rigor. 

But what do others think...Does this approach seem scientific to you? Does therapy even 'do' science?

Reply to post from Dennis GreenReply
Like post from Dennis Green1 LikeLike count: 1
Mark as unreadMark as unread
Benedict Williams
Author
24 Sep 11:24

Reply from Benedict Williams
This is an interesting question - back *ahem* some time ago when I was a student the phrase "eclectic" was used to describe therapy that combined different approaches. If you combine techniques from perspectives whose underlying theories are in conflict, is that OK?  From a pragmatic viewpoint, if it works, does this matter?

Reply to post from Benedict WilliamsReply
Like post from Benedict Williams1 LikeLike count: 1
Mark as unreadMark as unread
Hope Walsh
25 Sep 2:27

Reply from Hope Walsh
@Benedict Williams

Something that has always stuck with me was being told in second year that the most important variable influencing positive therapeutic outcomes is the client-therapist relationship, over and above the therapeutic approach used. Carl Rogers did indeed develop the person-centred approach and I think it's an approach that a lot of people tend to resonate with as it places the client as the expert of their own phenomenological experience and encourages the client to be active in their own growth rather than a 'passive recipient' of authoritative therapy. The humanistic approach is more like leading the client to discover themselves and their needs rather than telling them what they are and how they came to be. I think the influence of this approach has been more far-reaching in that it's principles are applied widely irregardless of a psychologist theoretical specialisation/approach. 

Reply to post from Hope WalshReply
Like post from Hope Walsh1 LikeLike count: 1
Mark as unreadMark as unread
AM
Angelina Mack
25 Sep 11:39

Reply from Angelina Mack
Hi Dennis, I found your question Does therapy do science? I would have to say yes it does somewhat. If I was a client sitting in front of a therapist I would ask the therapist for some sort of evidence in writing, that what the therapist is teaching me about changing my behaviors has worked with others. Unless a client trusts their therapist implicitly why would I listen to anything they have to say without any evidence? 

 

Reply to post from Angelina MackReply
Like post from Angelina Mack LikeLike count: 0
Mark as unreadMark as unread
DG
Dennis Green
26 Sep 10:20

Reply from Dennis Green
@Angelina Mack

Hey Angelina,

You are spot on about the importance of the therapeutic "alliance". This is the special sauce when it comes to applied psychology. For me, as a condition of therapy or counselling I do not need to sit before somebody to be taught about myself. Carl Rogers and humanistic psychology rightly places the client as expert, and the practitioner as insightful collaborator in this process. Change in this sense is not administered to a client but emerges from the client, and the evidence for therapeutic benefit is found in actual outcomes in the individual client's life. 

Reply to post from Dennis GreenReply
Like post from Dennis Green1 LikeLike count: 1
Mark as unreadMark as unread
KL
Kimly Ly
26 Sep 10:41

Reply from Kimly Ly
I really like how you described the tension between being seen as "the product of my subconscious" or "the sum total of my behaviours," and how a Rogerian approach introduces that much-needed sense of agency. The idea that blending Carl Rogers’ unconditional positive regard with CBT can offer a pathway that feels both empowering and scientific is an intriguing one. Personally, I am more than happy to not pick a side haha! It may be a cop-out but I like to see it as embracing the complexity of emotions, identity and behaviour. 

When you ask whether this approach seems scientific, I think you're onto something. By incorporating CBT, you’re bringing in the principles of behavioural experimentation, which are definitely rooted in science. CBT allows for hypotheses to be tested, and outcomes can be measured, which gives the therapeutic process a structure similar to the scientific method. You’re essentially collecting data (observing your thoughts, behaviours, and emotions), testing interventions, and analysing the results. In that sense, it feels scientific because there is an emphasis on observable, measurable change.

But to your point—does therapy “do” science? I think that’s where it gets complicated. Therapy isn’t only about measurable change; it’s also deeply personal and relational. The Rogerian elements you highlighted—such as empathy, agency, and unconditional positive regard—are harder to quantify, but they are crucial to the healing process. While these aspects may not always fit neatly into a scientific framework, they are foundational for creating a safe space for clients to explore their emotions and behaviours.

So maybe therapy doesn’t always "do science" in a strict sense, but it can incorporate scientific elements. I think it’s the combination of science with the human, relational aspects that makes therapy effective for many people. What do you think? Does a mix of science and humanism in therapy make it more balanced, or should one approach take precedence over the other?

Reply to post from Kimly LyReply
Like post from Kimly Ly1 LikeLike count: 1
Mark as unreadMark as unread
AM
Ankita Mavji
26 Sep 15:03

Reply from Ankita Mavji
@Dennis Green

I enjoy this commentary made on the importance of theraputic alliance. This client-centered perspective aligns well with the notion that therapy should be a collaborative process, where the therapist provides insight, support, and a safe environment for exploration, but ultimately, the client leads their own journey. The real evidence, as you pointed out, is in the tangible outcomes in the client's life—how they navigate their world, relationships, and challenges after therapy. It's a reminder that therapy isn't just about the techniques or theories but about the human connection and the transformative process that the client brings upon themself through self initiation, desire and internal motivation 

Reply to post from Ankita MavjiReply
Like post from Ankita Mavji1 LikeLike count: 1
Mark as unreadMark as unread
DG
Dennis Green
26 Sep 21:47

Reply from Dennis Green
@Kimly Ly

You have synthesised these complex ideas beautifully. Your comment about therapy not being just about measurable change is pivotal to this whole question of whether therapy "does" science. In that deeply personal and relational sense you mentioned, we know that therapy often concerns existential issues relating to human purpose & meaning and by extension human flourishing, which defy formal measurement. And yet there is a test of predictive validity inherent to all therapeutic interventions and a form of actualised measurement. That is, positive outcomes evidenced in the lives of people. From a humanistic and pragmatic perspective, perhaps this is the most important criteria to satisfy and all 'the science' that therapy needs to be doing..?   

Reply to post from Dennis GreenReply
Like post from Dennis Green LikeLike count: 0
Mark as unreadMark as unread
NK
Nicole Kapp
29 Sep 12:56

Reply from Nicole Kapp
@Hope Walsh

The points you have made regarding the far reach and wide spread application of Rogers client centred approach really sum up how I felt when responding to this prompt. When reading more about his theory i saw so many links between his principles and methods used in CBT, ACT and DBT, which really demonstrated the vast spread of his ideas. Particularly the importance of the client-therapist relationship and the promotion of self-actualisation through acceptance and responsibility. I like your point about a client having an active role in their growth, I think that is such an important contributor for change in the therapeutic setting. 

Reply to post from Nicole KappReply
Like post from Nicole Kapp LikeLike count: 0
Mark as unreadMark as unread
TL
Tegan Law-Marks
29 Sep 17:30

Reply from Tegan Law-Marks
@Kimly Ly

As mentioned by Kimly, CBT is beneficial in the sense that it mirrors the scientific method in allowing for hypotheses to be tested, and outcomes to be measured. I think it’s definitely necessary to have scientifically based guidelines for treatment, as it’s unethical to treat people based on opinions or the therapist's personal perceptions. However, I think it is just as unethical that the scientific base has the amount of influence it does on treatment access. The evidenced efficacy of certain treatments (which often can be effective in a limited amount of sessions, therefore takes a minimal toll on resources) can unfortunately be argued to stifle the autonomy of clients in choosing their treatment options, on the basis that it informs mental health care plan allocated sessions. Only 10 sessions are provided under this plan to use only evidenced based treatment approaches of Psycho-education, Cognitive-behavioural therapy, Relaxation strategies, Skills training, Interpersonal therapy (especially for depression), Narrative therapy (for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people), and Eye-Movement Desensitisation Reprocessing (EMDR). The over-reliance on CBT approaches unfortunately endorse a band-aid, if there is a problem you find a solution, approach to therapy, antithetical to the humanistic approach which emphasises optimising the human experience rather than targeting and fixing problems. 

I definite agree with you Kimly, that therapy shouldn't do science, just be incorporate certain elements. I think this flexibility is important in attempting to navigate a middle ground that is optimal for each individual client. "