I did not recommend any particular intervention in my post. I just tried to explain some part of my understanding of how new psycho- and social technologies are generated, and what conclusions I draw from that.
If you expect most if not all established therapeutic interventions to not survive the replication crisis - what would you consider sufficient evidence for using or suggesting a certain intervention?
For example, a friend of mine felt blue today and I sent them a video of an animated dancing seal without extensively googling for meta-analyses on the effect of cute seal videos on peoples' moods beforehand. Would you say I had sufficient evidence to assume that doing so is better than not doing so? Or did I commit epistemic sin in making that decision? This is an honest question, because I don't yet get your point.
Agreed. But sitting around and sulking is a bummer, so I rather keep learning, exploring, and sometimes finding things that work for me.
So, in other words - I am wrong, hippies are wrong, and most if not all therapies that look so far like they are backed by evidence are likely wrong, too.
Who or what do you suggest we turn to for fixing our stuff?
Thanks for adding clarity! What does "support" mean, in this context? What's the key factors that prevent the probabilities from being >90%?
If the key bottleneck is someone to spearhead this as a full-time position and you'd willingly redirect existing capacity to advise/support them, I might be able to help find someone as well.
It's not the same thing; the link was broken because Slack links expire after a month. Fixed for now.
Yea, but I don't remember claiming anywhere that I can cure anybody's depression, and don't really intend to ever do that...?