<p>Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.  It started as a pure-conditioning school, but it later on took on evidence from studies in cognition.  It's the school that holds the most science behind it. Some of its history can be found at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#History" rel="nofollow">its wikipedia page</a>:  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although the early behavioral approaches were successful in many of the neurotic disorders, they had little success in treating depression.[109][110][118] Behaviorism was also losing in popularity due to the so-called "cognitive revolution". The therapeutic approaches of Albert Ellis and Aaron T. Beck gained popularity among behavior therapists, despite the earlier behaviorist rejection of "mentalistic" concepts like thoughts and cognitions.[109] Both of these systems included behavioral elements and interventions and primarily concentrated on problems in the present.
  In initial studies, cognitive therapy was often contrasted with behavioral treatments to see which was most effective. During the 1980s and 1990s, cognitive and behavioral techniques were merged into cognitive behavioral therapy. Pivotal to this merging was the successful development of treatments for panic disorder by David M. Clark in the UK and David H. Barlow in the US.[110]
  Over time, cognitive behavior therapy became to be known not only as a therapy, but as an umbrella term for all cognitive-based psychotherapies.[109] These therapies include, but are not limited to, rational emotive therapy, cognitive therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, reality therapy/choice theory, cognitive processing therapy, EMDR, and multimodal therapy.[109] All of these therapies are a blending of cognitive- and behavior-based elements.
  This blending of theoretical and technical foundations from both behavior and cognitive therapies constitute the "third wave" of CBT,[114] which is the current wave.[114] The most prominent therapies of this third wave are dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.[114]</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-02T09:05:33.297Z
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this answer is very unclear. What does "the most science" mean? What other schools are you comparing it with? It's also unclear to me what relevance the long excerpt has to the question. It seems to simply describe CBT.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-02T10:42:31.703Z
You're right; it's hard to quantify "the most science"; but I think people looking at the behavioral, cognitive (and lately neuroscience) research are in a better position to be classified as scientific.  By that word I am explicitly comparing with Freudian and these other speculative theories without rigorous experiment testing behind them.
linhares
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-02T12:03:17.510Z
First of all, you're implicitly, not explicitly comparing things. Secondly, who are these researchers? What research are you alluding to? Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the core message of your answer here, but it currently reads like a subjective opinion, not like a scientifically grounded view.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T01:35:17.447Z
Although I might be more open to people offering their professional subjective opinion than @ChristianHummeluhr is, this answer does bother me. It seems like just a quote (and not even a self-contained one, since the references are just numbers) from wikipedia. A lot of the quote also seems irrelevant to the question. I feel like this would have been more appropriate as a link in the comments than as an answer.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T04:54:19.113Z
I guess you & Christian are right; I was in a rush and just gave the pointer to CBT; I'm glad to see that @MariaAnt has brought forth a full answer.
linhares
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-02T08:57:36.697Z
2015-05-02T08:57:36.697Z
linhares
<p>There is a problem in all therapies that if the client doesn't have faith or trust in the therapist then it is unlikely that anything can be achieved.  Therefore effective therapy for an extreme skeptic relies on convincing them that the therapist does indeed have some talent and ability.</p>

<p>Consider a profile that has something akin to the following views on common therapies:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When looking at psychotherapy and therapists the list of different "types" seems endless.  On the one end, "Freudian" or "Psychoanalysis" is widely discredited quakery.  Carl Jung believed in "synchronicity", which puts him firmly in the quack bin.  Plenty of other therapist start talking "spirituality" and so again, sadly are filed under "not proper scientific medicine".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If someone has the above attitude to therapy and psychotherapy, what sort of therapist is going to be most credible?  We are talking about finding a credible therapy for someone who would self describe as a skeptic, atheist, scientist, etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-02T20:12:10.647Z
This question may be ambiguous - would be better if it could be clarified...  The British NHS for example actually covers homeopathy.  They are well aware that it is not grounded in any science, but for certain types of therapy (eg, pain), it works.  Different therapies work for different issues.  Evidence supports CBT as having probably the most widespread applicability, but that's different from suggesting that it is grounded in science.  Behavioural therapy may be closest in application to the research that it's based on, but it's effective for fewer issues than CBT.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-04T11:45:38.470Z
"Therefore effective therapy for an extreme skeptic relies on convincing them that the therapist does indeed have some talent and ability." -- Is there any way to convince an 'extreme skeptic' besides showing them hard evidence? That's basically the definition of skepticism. We can't answer questions about specific individuals.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-04T22:23:03.107Z
@ChristianHummeluhr "we can't answer questions about specific individuals".  Surely cognitive science is all about answering questions about specific individuals by identifying traits that allow us to predict their behavior :-)  In this case, we are talking about skeptical individuals.
Anon1423563
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T01:13:46.340Z
@Anon1423563 I like this question, but I thought it would be more clear if your "edit" was presented before the hypothetical profile and have edited it accordingly. Feel free to revert my edits if you feel they miss the spirit of your question.
Artem Kaznatcheev
<clinical-psychology><psychoanalysis>
Which schools of psychotherapy are most credible to a hard scientist?
Anon1423563
# Which schools of psychotherapy are most credible to a hard scientist?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-05-01)

There is a problem in all therapies that if the client doesn't have faith or trust in the therapist then it is unlikely that anything can be achieved. Therefore effective therapy for an extreme skeptic relies on convincing them that the therapist does indeed have some talent and ability.

Consider a profile that has something akin to the following views on common therapies:

> When looking at psychotherapy and therapists the list of different "types" seems endless. On the one end, "Freudian" or "Psychoanalysis" is widely discredited quakery. Carl Jung believed in "synchronicity", which puts him firmly in the quack bin. Plenty of other therapist start talking "spirituality" and so again, sadly are filed under "not proper scientific medicine".

If someone has the above attitude to therapy and psychotherapy, what sort of therapist is going to be most credible? We are talking about finding a credible therapy for someone who would self describe as a skeptic, atheist, scientist, etc.

**Tags:** clinical-psychology, psychoanalysis

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question may be ambiguous - would be better if it could be clarified...  The British NHS for example actually covers homeopathy.  They are well aware that it is not grounded in any science, but for certain types of therapy (eg, pain), it works.  Different therapies work for different issues.  Evidence supports CBT as having probably the most widespread applicability, but that's different from suggesting that it is grounded in science.  Behavioural therapy may be closest in application to the research that it's based on, but it's effective for fewer issues than CBT.  
> **username_2**: "Therefore effective therapy for an extreme skeptic relies on convincing them that the therapist does indeed have some talent and ability." -- Is there any way to convince an 'extreme skeptic' besides showing them hard evidence? That's basically the definition of skepticism. We can't answer questions about specific individuals.  
> **username_0**: @ChristianHummeluhr "we can't answer questions about specific individuals".  Surely cognitive science is all about answering questions about specific individuals by identifying traits that allow us to predict their behavior :-)  In this case, we are talking about skeptical individuals.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I like this question, but I thought it would be more clear if your "edit" was presented before the hypothetical profile and have edited it accordingly. Feel free to revert my edits if you feel they miss the spirit of your question.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-05-02. Score: 3

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It started as a pure-conditioning school, but it later on took on evidence from studies in cognition. It's the school that holds the most science behind it. Some of its history can be found at [its wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#History):

> Although the early behavioral approaches were successful in many of the neurotic disorders, they had little success in treating depression.[109][110][118] Behaviorism was also losing in popularity due to the so-called "cognitive revolution". The therapeutic approaches of Albert Ellis and Aaron T. Beck gained popularity among behavior therapists, despite the earlier behaviorist rejection of "mentalistic" concepts like thoughts and cognitions.[109] Both of these systems included behavioral elements and interventions and primarily concentrated on problems in the present.
> In initial studies, cognitive therapy was often contrasted with behavioral treatments to see which was most effective. During the 1980s and 1990s, cognitive and behavioral techniques were merged into cognitive behavioral therapy. Pivotal to this merging was the successful development of treatments for panic disorder by David M. Clark in the UK and David H. Barlow in the US.[110]
> Over time, cognitive behavior therapy became to be known not only as a therapy, but as an umbrella term for all cognitive-based psychotherapies.[109] These therapies include, but are not limited to, rational emotive therapy, cognitive therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, reality therapy/choice theory, cognitive processing therapy, EMDR, and multimodal therapy.[109] All of these therapies are a blending of cognitive- and behavior-based elements.
> This blending of theoretical and technical foundations from both behavior and cognitive therapies constitute the "third wave" of CBT,[114] which is the current wave.[114] The most prominent therapies of this third wave are dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.[114]

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this answer is very unclear. What does "the most science" mean? What other schools are you comparing it with? It's also unclear to me what relevance the long excerpt has to the question. It seems to simply describe CBT.  
> **username_4**: You're right; it's hard to quantify "the most science"; but I think people looking at the behavioral, cognitive (and lately neuroscience) research are in a better position to be classified as scientific.  By that word I am explicitly comparing with Freudian and these other speculative theories without rigorous experiment testing behind them.  
> **username_2**: First of all, you're implicitly, not explicitly comparing things. Secondly, who are these researchers? What research are you alluding to? Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the core message of your answer here, but it currently reads like a subjective opinion, not like a scientifically grounded view.  
> **username_3**: Although I might be more open to people offering their professional subjective opinion than @ChristianHummeluhr is, this answer does bother me. It seems like just a quote (and not even a self-contained one, since the references are just numbers) from wikipedia. A lot of the quote also seems irrelevant to the question. I feel like this would have been more appropriate as a link in the comments than as an answer.  
> **username_4**: I guess you & Christian are right; I was in a rush and just gave the pointer to CBT; I'm glad to see that @MariaAnt has brought forth a full answer.  

---

