Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
This article is a continuation of the discussion started by Witkowski and Fortuna. Both authors deserve recognition for bringing to our attention how relatively easy it is to popularize pseudo-scientific methods. On the other hand, it does not mean that these pseudoscientific methods will immediately find wide recognition among psychotherapists. The author of this commentary wonders why some pseudo-scientific methods can be popularized so easily. The authors’ argument, that the functioning of pseudo-therapy is possible due to the indifference of academic psychologists, is an oversimplification. The author discusses the various roots of this phenomenon such as, for example, lack of dialogue between practitioners and academics. The language of science is often too insular for practitioners who look for concepts that can be implemented in their work and not those that meet criteria of science. The role of academics does not consist in supervising psychotherapists but in answering questions posed by practitioners and by providing assistance in assessing which methods used in psychotherapy are evidence-based.
Keywords: psychotherapy, pseudoscience, dialogue
Cite this article as:
Chrząstowski, S. (2008). On the dialogue (or its lack) between psychotherapists and academic psychologists. Psychologia Społeczna, 9, 313-317.