#9 Lo tremendo es que hay cientos y cientos de páginas en estudios científicos desacreditando el SAP. No está admitido ni en el DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) que es como la biblia de los trastornos mentales en psicología, pero aquí la gente se pasa por el arco del triunfo la ciencia, y piensan que el SAP debe existir por sus cojones morenos.
Es inenarrable la estupidez que rezuman los foros que hablan de algo que no existe como el SAP, y no se dan cuenta que dando identidad científica a algo como el SAP, que no la tiene se ponen a la altura de los terraplanistas, antivacunas, paranoicos de los chemtrails, y demás.
Scientific status Gardner's formulation of PAS is critiqued as lacking a scientific basis,[42][43][44] and as a hypothesis whose proponents have failed to meet the scientific burden of proof to merit acceptance.[7][42][44][45][46] The first publications about PAS were self-published and not peer reviewed,[9] and though subsequent articles have been published in peer reviewed journals, most have consisted of anecdotal evidence in the form of case studies;[18][47] in addition, the limited research into PAS has lacked evidence of its validity and reliability.[5][6] The lack of objective research and replication, falsifiability, and independent publication has led to claims that PAS is pseudoscience or junk science.[4][42][43] Proponents of PAS concur that large scale systematic controlled studies into PAS's validity and reliability are required,[9][11][48] supplementing a single small study in 2004 which suggested practitioners could come to a consensus based on written reports.[28]
The theoretical foundation of PAS has been described as incomplete, simplistic and erroneous for ignoring the multiple factors (including the behaviors of the child, parents and other family members) that may contribute to parental alienation, family dysfunction and a breakdown in attachment between a parent and a child.[9][14][33][18][49] In this view, PAS confuses a child's developmental reaction to a divorce with psychosis, vastly overstates the number of false allegations of child sexual abuse, ignores the scientific literature suggesting most allegations of child sexual abuse are well founded and thus well-meaning efforts to protect a child from an abusive parent, exaggerates the damaging effects of parental alienation on children and proposes an unsupported and endangering remedy for PAS.[5][28] Concern has been expressed that PAS lacks adequate scientific support to be considered a syndrome and that Gardner has promoted PAS as a syndrome based on a vague clustering of behaviors.[9][30] Despite concerns about the validity of testimony regarding PAS, it has been inappropriately viewed as reliable by family court judges.[7] Proponents of PAS and others agree that using the designation of syndrome may be inappropriate as it implies more scientific legitimacy than it currently deserves.[18][23][48]
Toda la comunidad científica está de acuerdo que el SAP no tiene validez científica, que los estudios en los que se basa son a menudo autopublicados y sin revisión de pares y los pocos que lo son se basan en evidencia anecdótica, así, resumido. Pero los que se pasan la ciencia por los cojones son los demás.
#26 Lo tendrás en los apuntes que quieras, te digo lo que dice la comunidad científica: no es un síndrome o trastorno como tal y cada vez se está rechazando más en el ámbito legal precisamente por su falta de base científica.
Independientemente de que maltrate más a hombres o mujeres. No hablo desde mi experiencia personal, hablo desde los datos.
#28 ¿Eran esos médicos psiquiatras? Porque no sé si te has dado cuenta pero hablamos de síndromes y trastornos mentales. Y dentro de la psiquiatría también está descartado.
Las únicas que lo limitan en un solo sentido y lo llaman "violencia vicaria" son estas hembristas
Tienes que estar de coña.
Es inenarrable la estupidez que rezuman los foros que hablan de algo que no existe como el SAP, y no se dan cuenta que dando identidad científica a algo como el SAP, que no la tiene se ponen a la altura de los terraplanistas, antivacunas, paranoicos de los chemtrails, y demás.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome
Scientific status
Gardner's formulation of PAS is critiqued as lacking a scientific basis,[42][43][44] and as a hypothesis whose proponents have failed to meet the scientific burden of proof to merit acceptance.[7][42][44][45][46] The first publications about PAS were self-published and not peer reviewed,[9] and though subsequent articles have been published in peer reviewed journals, most have consisted of anecdotal evidence in the form of case studies;[18][47] in addition, the limited research into PAS has lacked evidence of its validity and reliability.[5][6] The lack of objective research and replication, falsifiability, and independent publication has led to claims that PAS is pseudoscience or junk science.[4][42][43] Proponents of PAS concur that large scale systematic controlled studies into PAS's validity and reliability are required,[9][11][48] supplementing a single small study in 2004 which suggested practitioners could come to a consensus based on written reports.[28]
The theoretical foundation of PAS has been described as incomplete, simplistic and erroneous for ignoring the multiple factors (including the behaviors of the child, parents and other family members) that may contribute to parental alienation, family dysfunction and a breakdown in attachment between a parent and a child.[9][14][33][18][49] In this view, PAS confuses a child's developmental reaction to a divorce with psychosis, vastly overstates the number of false allegations of child sexual abuse, ignores the scientific literature suggesting most allegations of child sexual abuse are well founded and thus well-meaning efforts to protect a child from an abusive parent, exaggerates the damaging effects of parental alienation on children and proposes an unsupported and endangering remedy for PAS.[5][28] Concern has been expressed that PAS lacks adequate scientific support to be considered a syndrome and that Gardner has promoted PAS as a syndrome based on a vague clustering of behaviors.[9][30] Despite concerns about the validity of testimony regarding PAS, it has been inappropriately viewed as reliable by family court judges.[7] Proponents of PAS and others agree that using the designation of syndrome may be inappropriate as it implies more scientific legitimacy than it currently deserves.[18][23][48]
Toda la comunidad científica está de acuerdo que el SAP no tiene validez científica, que los estudios en los que se basa son a menudo autopublicados y sin revisión de pares y los pocos que lo son se basan en evidencia anecdótica, así, resumido. Pero los que se pasan la ciencia por los cojones son los demás.
¡Qué webos tienen algunos!
*
La CIE 11 es más seria que la DSM5 muy desacreditada.
A que vuelve, creo que antes de Dos o tres años, y repito creo que se maltrata más a mujeres.
Yo lo tengo en apuntes oficiales.
Independientemente de que maltrate más a hombres o mujeres. No hablo desde mi experiencia personal, hablo desde los datos.
*
El DSM5 está muy,muy cuestionado y científico,bueno. Sigue más intereses de farmacéuticas y políticos.
*
Cambió en 5 o 6 años
*
¿Sabes si el Sindrome de la Mujer maltratada está incluido en el DSM?
Gracias de antemano