Posted by Dr. Brent Conrad, author of The Computer, Internet, and Video Game Addiction Workbook
Will e-therapy become a real alternative to traditional one-on-one therapy from a mental health professional?
For most people dealing with psychological or emotional problems, in-person contact with a qualified psychologist or counselor has been the obvious source for professional help. However, for a growing number of people, e-therapy (online therapy conducted via chat, email, or webcam) is becoming a popular alternative.
This article provides a good overview of the pros of e-therapy such as:
Convenience - Can be accessed by anyone, anywhere
Affordable – E-therapy is usually significantly less expense than an in-person session
Promotes Honesty – The argument is that people are generally more honest about their true feelings when online
In contrast, the cons of e-therapy include:
No Contact – May decrease therapist-client trust
No Research – Is e-therapy effective? Hard to say as there has been little research to date.
No Accountability for the Patient – There may be less commitment to e-therapy and less motivation to continue
After doing a quick search for e-therapists, I would also add a lack of accountability for the service provider - there appears to be some pretty sketchy characters offering e-therapy (wild claims, questionable credentials, etc) and I would really do my homework before considering an e-therapist over an in-person appointment with a registered (and qualified) psychologist.
If you needed to talk to a mental health professional, would you consider paying for an e-therapist?
Posted by Dr. Brent Conrad from www.TechAddiction.ca
Parents’ advocacy groups in Canada and the US are successfully getting schools to ban wireless internet access due to health concerns.
It seems as though there have been more of these stories over the last year or so.
Although I think that keeping phones out of the classroom is a good idea (you are there to learn, not text, right?), is banning wifi in public places based on evidence or unjustified fear?
Points from the story:
- In May of 2011 the World Health Organization classified the RF signals sent via cell phones and wifi connections as “possibly carcinogenic”
- Health Canada states that there is “strong evidence” that current exposure levels to wifi signals are not dangerous and no additional precautions are necessary
- Some parents believe that their children have experienced headaches, nausea and heart problems due to exposure to wifi signals
- Magda Havas, a Trent University professor argues that there is research showing that exposure to radio frequencies leads to an increase in tumors for rats
- Dave Michelson, an electrical engineering professor at the University of British Columbia believes that wireless internet is safe and that groups trying to enforce bans are doing more harm than good
What do you think? Is our precious wifi access slowly killing us (get in line wifi, you have a lot of competition), or is this just a “sky is falling” overreaction with not enough evidence to back it up?
Original Article: WiFi foes fight to rid schools of wireless Internet
As social media becomes more and more intertwined with our lives, problems like online bullying, internet, and video game addiction will almost certainly become more common.
It’s not all negative though. Case in point: Facebook announced a program today that may be helpful for people experiencing suicidal thoughts.
Here’s how it works:
If you see one of your friends expressing suicidal thoughts or intentions, you will be able to click a link next to the comment. Facebook then sends a link to the user with the opportunity to instantly connect (online chat or on the phone) with a crisis counsellor from the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
Good idea I guess. Do you think there is a possibility it will be abused though (e.g., pranks)?
LONDON – A coalition of major U.K. Internet providers said Tuesday that it would begin forcing customers to choose whether to have access to pornography and other potentially unsavoury websites, rather than simply offering consumers the option to block them.
The family advocate behind the move says it will push families to think about what their children are looking at online, but civil libertarians worry that adults could be caught up in — and potentially get used to — online censorship.
“The choice needs to be framed as a choice about parental controls,” said Jim Killock, the chief executive of Britain’s Open Rights Group. “Adults should not be being asked to make choices about content they may wish to view, or may need to view in the future.”
Like their counterparts elsewhere, British Internet providers have long offered customers the option of installing parental blocks to protect children from objectionable content — including not just pornography and gambling but also websites that promote eating disorders, self-harm or suicide.
But a government-ordered review into the sexualization of children published in June recommended that parents be forced to make an explicit choice whether to include the blocks. The review’s author, family advocate Reg Bailey, told BBC television that the issue with existing parental controls is that “the default position is that they’re turned off.”
He said forcing the choice is a way to confront parents with the question: “Do you actually want to access adult material on the Internet through this device?”
“That persuades parents in many ways to have a conversation with children and young people about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing,” he told the broadcaster. “It’s a much more active process than it is at present.”
Killock said he didn’t have a problem with stronger parental controls — so long as they remained just that. The danger, he said, was that forcing adult consumers to explicitly state whether they wanted to access pornography or other material might intimidate some into agreeing to a form of censorship.
“If you’re faced with the question: ‘Do you wish to switch on adult content, yes or no?’ then people will switch it off because they might think: ‘Oh my partner won’t approve,’” he said. “It’s inappropriate to get adults to start living in a censored world.”
The four providers who’ve pledged to implement the new measure are the BT Group PLC, British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., Virgin Media and the TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC. None of the providers gave a precise timeline for when the measure would be put into place.
WhatsYourPrice.com, an online dating website where users buy or sell first dates, just announced the results of a three month long study which concludes that men value love $73 more than sex.
According to the online dating study, men seeking casual or no-strings-attached relationships paid an average of $121 for a first date, whereas single men looking for serious long-term relationships paid an average of $194 for the opportunity of finding love.
“We often hear the stereotype that men value sex and women value love,” says Founder & CEO of WhatsYourPrice.com and MIT alumni, Brandon Wade. “Our online dating study shows this stereotype is wrong. In fact, men value love more than sex by over 60%.”
The online dating study also finds that men who seek only casual or no-strings attached relationships tend to be serial daters and more prolific, paying for first dates over 2.1 times more, than commitment-minded men.
Over 50,000 men were included in this online dating study. To determine the value of love and sex, the average price members paid for a first date on WhatsYourPrice.com was calculated. The value of love is determined as the price paid for a first date by singles looking only for long-term relationships and marriage. The value of sex is calculated as the price paid for a first date by those seeking short-term relationships, extra-marital affairs and casual relationships.