ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Arthur Janov , john lennon , neurology , primal therapy , psychology

Reply
Old 20th August 2008, 07:13 PM   #81
Andrew4589
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21
No. And I thought that was clear? The only 'distinct' result for me relating to PT is that I, and my mother, had a primal and it was curitive for me with respect to what I was resolving. And that is a fact, and that is why I will investigate PT further. I never said Janov's brand of PT was effective - only that it was not disproven in response to what I found to be the unqualified damning of his work. People seem to think that I am actively pushing PT as "the real deal". Though I think it's very interesting stuff, and likely to have some truth in it, I never did say it was "real" as Janov defines it. I only suggested keeping an open mind on it. And yes, I have long known that there have been abuses in this territory. There have been abuses in conventional therapies too.

However, I do make the claim that PT cannot be clinically proven as effective, and you cannot prove it to be superior or inferior to other therapies - because we can't actually measure a psychotherapy's effectiveness in a robust manner (yes, we can get some kind of robust measurments of what we can overtly observe, but we can't form robust interpretations of the therapeutic meaning of those measurments, because we don't understand mental health enough to do so).

You should go to Janov's site and ask for his evidence yourself, if you want to know at least something PT's effectiveness[er, Janov's version of it, that is]. He has done his own research at least. He also provides contact opportunites for you to speak to former patients. The latter is probably your best bet.

Last edited by Andrew4589; 20th August 2008 at 07:30 PM.
Andrew4589 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2008, 09:15 PM   #82
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
However, I do make the claim that PT cannot be clinically proven as effective, and you cannot prove it to be superior or inferior to other therapies - because we can't actually measure a psychotherapy's effectiveness in a robust manner (yes, we can get some kind of robust measurments of what we can overtly observe, but we can't form robust interpretations of the therapeutic meaning of those measurments, because we don't understand mental health enough to do so).
That did it for me. I'm gonna pack it up, retire early, and go play golf!



Well, maybe not just yet. You've got some explaining to do.

1. What would you consider to be an appropriate, meaningful measure of psychotherapy efficacy under controlled conditions? "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer.

2. What do you consider valid evidence that is not overt observation, as you phrase it? Do you trust self-report more (careful with this one)?

3. What would constitute a "robust interpretation of therapeutic meaning"? Is symptom remission never good enough? What about full remission (attenuated symptoms, markedly improved global functioning, going from failure to adhere to ADLs to back on track with ADLs) and multiple lines of evidence from observed behaviors, self-report, and others' reports corroborating this? And are we really so incapable of ever telling apart a successful therapy from a blatantly unsuccesful one?

4. What exactly do we need to understand about mental health to be able to determine efficacy of therapies?

Finally, by asking you this, please don't take it as some indirect offense; I'm honestly just trying to get a feel for your background so I can understand better where you are coming from.

What was the nature of your clinical psychology training/education background (e.g., was it a more practitioner-based program or more scientist-practitioner based)? And how would you characterize your philosophy of science?

The reason I ask is because I have come across a ton of clinical psychologists who are extremely astute practitioners, but who really don't have a firm foundation in research (NOT their fault necessarily, but different training programs can have wildly different emphases). I would guess that you are more of a practitioner whereas I am more of a researcher.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2008, 11:13 PM   #83
Andrew4589
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21
Though I have independently studied a lot in psychology, I have no formal training in it. I have responded to my own study and observations, and talk with other people in the field. That's what my education here is based on. I have a very strong interest in motivation, neurosis and repression (especially the sociological relationship to it).

I think I can see the problem with the way I'm explaining myself.

Janov claims that the relationship between repression and symptoms is dynamic. He believes that curing symptoms usually only equates to pushing the impact of the trauma deeper into the body/psyche, which equates to swapping one symptom for another [though the 'other symptom' may not be immediately apparent - observable], because the fundamental 'pressure' is still there. He believes that when trauma's get closer to the surface (through regression) they often come with new and/or more pronounced psychosomatic problems, so although the patient arguably is getting better in that they are closer to integating their pain (in his therapy), they appear, on the face of it, to be getting worse in terms of what is overtly recordable. He's been saying this for decades.

Is this wrong or right? I don't know (and yes 'I don't know' is good enough when it's the truth). I believe that it is true that the relationship between observable symptoms and therapies does not specifically prove the effectiveness of a treatment - unless, your goal is specifically to reduce the observable symptoms (and obviously there is a place for this with extreme conditions. I said earlier (in other words) that the 'subjectivity' of getting better does not apply to extreme and obvious conditions that common sense shows must be dealt with so the individual can function in life....severe mental and physiological conditions I consider another issue). When I say "you can't prove the therapy" I mean "you can't prove a therapy is curative in ultimate positive terms". You can never prove that you are not ultimately swapping one problem with another. Whether or not the changes observed are a final net improvement, and to what degree, is subjective outside the extremes. And whether or not any given therapy is better or worse than another would require a subjective perspective on what the desired outcomes should be i.e. which results are better?

My point is that if you want to do a comparitive evaluation of PT to other therapies, you have to respect that PT at least claims to be doing something new - removing the trauma. In turn it is not unreasonable to be careful with what your evluation criteria is to compare PT with other therapies. Because we do not properly understand the relationship between neurosis and observable symptoms, because we do not fully understand what neurosis actually is. The latter is my key point.

As for my perspective on science? Realism, to the best of my ability. That's all there is. I certainly don't believe that science means "ignore what you can see naturally for yourself if it cannot be reduced to data". (not to suggest that you yourself do that).

In writing all this I'm trying to get people to see my arguments in a certain light. I apologise if there seem to be flaws in my argument. My communication skills are not perfect.

All I want to say to the professionals out there is this: Please do your homework on the regressive process (as in get your face right in there, and watch it happening); if it's basically real, like Janov describes it, then you may have to accept that conventional therapy has key limits that PT does not (?) - the quality of Janov's particular methodology notwithstanding. I have yet to attend Janov's clinic myself, but I look forward to seeing what it's made of regardless.

Last edited by Andrew4589; 20th August 2008 at 11:16 PM.
Andrew4589 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 04:22 AM   #84
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
This is a general comment for interested people:

There are 2 questions to be asked if you're really interested in the "Primal Therapy possibility".
You're asking the wrong questions.

Quote:
1. Is it true that repressed pain leads to the genesis of [most] mental sickness, creating tension and compulsions? (in my confident opinion, yes)
What you should be asking here is:
Is there any evidence that such a thing as repressed pain actually exists? If so, is there any evidence that it is a factor in any mental illness, let alone the sole cause of most? What is my opinion actually based on?

Quote:
The regressive premise is what should be investigated. Because if it's real, then beyond all doubt it's huge in terms of its importance to the psychology world.

To me, these are the first questions to be asked.
But they're not the first questions to be asked. Leading questions and begging the question are problems that leads many people into believing woo. In this case, you are starting from the assumption that repressed pain actually exists, and that it can cause mental problems. Until there is actually evidence that this is the case, things like primal therapy don't even have a problem for them to cure. Even if those first questions are answered, you are still left with the problem that there appears to be no evidence to support the claims made by proponents of primal therapy.

And again, the burden of proof lies squarely on Janov and other proponents of primal therapy. It is not up to anyone else to prove this works. Until he does, there is no reason for anyone else to take it seriously.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 06:48 AM   #85
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Overall, this whole thing is getting to be too much of a red herring that distracts from the central issue: Janov doesn’t have good evidence. And you didn’t really address too many of my questions aside from which philosophy of science you followed and that you don’t know what a good measure of efficacy is for therapies.

3.
Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
Though I have independently studied a lot in psychology, I have no formal training in it. I have responded to my own study and observations, and talk with other people in the field. That's what my education here is based on.
I would strongly recommend reading a text on clinical research design and statistics. With no formal training or education, I would be very careful coming out with bold assertions to the effect of "we just don't know enough to study the effectiveness of psychotherapies", which seems to be the linchpin to your view on primal scream (from what I gather from your posts, that's "well, we just shouldn't write primal scream off because we just don't know enough about the methods of generally testing therapy efficacy to do so"). That's just flat out not true, and the onus is on Janov to posit a testable claim or else BACK OFF from making such confident assertions.

This, to me, is a lot like being hesitant to write off Descartes’ idea of animal spirit human locomotion (spirits coursing through our bodies to help move our muscles) because “well, we just don’t know enough about testing presence and dynamics of animal spirits in people to know for sure”.

Of course, our tools have limitations, but these are not the kind of limitations that permit making a blanket statement that we are rendered incapable of ever properly testing these sorts of ideas. It would take too much time and energy to explain here at the length and level of detail that you require all the reasons why we do have a pretty darned good idea about testing therapy efficacy (i.e., the tenets of basic research methods as applied to this type of research), but thankfully, there are books that do that quite well in several hundred pages.

I recommend reading and attempting to understand the key concepts in Kazdin's Research Design in Clinical Psychology before forming too strong an opinion on this.

3.
Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
Janov claims that the relationship between repression and symptoms is dynamic. He believes that curing symptoms usually only equates to pushing the impact of the trauma deeper into the body/psyche, which equates to swapping one symptom for another [though the 'other symptom' may not be immediately apparent - observable], because the fundamental 'pressure' is still there.
First, how he gets "pushing impact of trauma deeper into the body/psyche" from symptom alleviation (or even curing, which is very rare) is not only a question-begging non-sequitur, it is not amenable to falsification. If the treated sx (sx = symptoms) were alleviated and other sx cropped up, Janov would say, “Aha, see! The trauma was pushed deeper inside!”. If sx were alleviated and no other sx appeared, Janov would say, “Aha! He’s exhibiting the symptom of repression!”. If no sx were alleviated, Janov would say, “Aha! I was right! He needs primal scream!”.

This, amigo, is an unbeatable system, and it’s rooted in classic Freudian illogic. The onus is on Janov to come up with a testable system of ideas; it is not the responsibility of mental health research to develop in a direction that makes possible the testing of Janov’s ideas or any other fanciful notion. And we aren’t still suspending judgment on Descartes’ idea of animal spirits moving people around because we haven’t found a good way to test the idea of spirits (and worst of all, perceiving this as “well, scientists just don’t know enough yet to fully understand the nature of animal spirits”). We either have compelling reasons backed by evidence for taking a claim seriously, or we don’t.

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
Is this wrong or right? I don't know (and yes 'I don't know' is good enough when it's the truth).
You claimed in a previous post to know that overt measures were not an appropriate way to test therapy efficacy. I asked what you think is an appropriate way to gauge this. You answer by saying you don’t know. So you claim to be able to recognize what is NOT appropriate, but you have no idea what is or could be appropriate. What, if anything, would ever convince you?

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
I believe that it is true that the relationship between observable symptoms and therapies does not specifically prove the effectiveness of a treatment - unless, your goal is specifically to reduce the observable symptoms (and obviously there is a place for this with extreme conditions. I said earlier (in other words) that the 'subjectivity' of getting better does not apply to extreme and obvious conditions that common sense shows must be dealt with so the individual can function in life....severe mental and physiological conditions I consider another issue).
Stop using the word “prove” in this context. Again, you really need to check out a text on clinical research methods.

Symptom alleviation may or may not be an indicator that the underlying core problem or cause has been rubbed out. It goes both ways. And subjective report can and does markedly improve with sx alleviation in many people being treated for a variety of mental health issues. This goes back to triangulation: we gather multiple converging lines of evidence for “getting better” using the information that we have available to us, and to dismiss these as just peripheral to effectiveness because we can’t comprehensively capture someone else’s qualia is unjustified. Doesn’t mean that the core problem is “cured” per se (nobody said that!), but getting back to Janov, you are giving him way more credit than he is due.

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
When I say "you can't prove the therapy" I mean "you can't prove a therapy is curative in ultimate positive terms". You can never prove that you are not ultimately swapping one problem with another. Whether or not the changes observed are a final net improvement, and to what degree, is subjective outside the extremes. And whether or not any given therapy is better or worse than another would require a subjective perspective on what the desired outcomes should be…
Nobody said anything about anything being curative or definitive proof. Red herring. With problem swapping, “can’t prove it” doesn’t equate to “believe Janov” or “waffle in ambiguity over Janov’s claims”. Again, Descartes’ animal spirits. And again, triangulation: subjective self-report complementing other lines of observable evidence.

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
My point is that if you want to do a comparitive evaluation of PT to other therapies, you have to respect that PT at least claims to be doing something new - removing the trauma.
No, I don’t have to respect what Janov claims PT to be able to do when he has no sound evidence for his claim. EMDR claims to be able to remove the trauma, too. And so did Mesmer’s magnetic baths.

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
As for my perspective on science? Realism, to the best of my ability. That's all there is. I certainly don't believe that science means "ignore what you can see naturally for yourself if it cannot be reduced to data". (not to suggest that you yourself do that).
Nor does science mean take seriously everything that comes down the pipe.

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
All I want to say to the professionals out there is this: Please do your homework on the regressive process (as in get your face right in there, and watch it happening); if it's basically real, like Janov describes it, then you may have to accept that conventional therapy has key limits that PT does not (?) - the quality of Janov's particular methodology notwithstanding.
Even granting (for a moment) the existence or non-existence of regressive processes, however wildly defined, this does not say anything per se about the effectiveness of primal scream. Apples and oranges. PS could be the wrong approach, no matter how much surface sense you draw out. Further, this would not necessarily speak toward limitations of certain conventional therapies (e.g., CBT). You need to be a bit more careful with your logic here.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 06:58 AM   #86
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,613
This is all reminding me a lot of homoeopathy. Homoeopaths claim that real medicines just push the symptoms deeper and then they express themselves in different (worse) symptoms. They also claim that if you get better after using it it is the homoeopathy wot cured you, and if you get worse this is also a sign that the medicine is working.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 11:00 AM   #87
noch1Narr
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,877
Fascinating reading, thank y'all! I am beginning to realise how damn little I know about everything....
noch1Narr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 02:40 PM   #88
Andrew4589
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21
Well, I've said what I want to say. I could provide a detailed response (I believe you've got me out of context in some places...maybe my fault?). This can go on forever.

I'll just say this: I had a "primal" exactly like Janov describes it, before I even knew about Janov's work (and it was truly curative). I don't expect you to take that seriously. But it's true this event happened, and I can't pretend to myself that it didn't.

I do not and never did believe Janov's work was proven "real" like he promotes it, though I do think there is a lot of truth in it, and for observational reasons that I can't reduce to a print-out of data. I'm happy to think, observe and develop opinions on what I can directly see for myself, rather than just data that can ultimately be interpreted in more than one way (all depending on what your founding ideas and understandings are).

I will investigate Janov's therapy (and don't worry, I'm not the sort of person to get sucked into a cult - if it's b.s, I'll know about pretty quick) because I have good reason to do so. And no, you don't have to take it seriously if you don't want to. But you cannot disprove it - yet (maybe you can can actually disprove? Feel free to forward me what you consider to be 'real' evidence that the regressive process is a nonsense - I will read it, and seriously.).

All I wanted to say on this blog: keep an open mind on the regressive processs, at least until you have a substantial reason not to.

And thankyou for all your reply's.
Andrew4589 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 03:00 PM   #89
Andrew4589
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21
---Oh, I should include that I take "what the patient says" most seriously, unless you're dealing with disorders (behavioural and physical) that are so extreme that they obviously have to be dealth with as they stand, regardless of what the ultimate causes may be. However, I do respect that people sometimes tell themselves they're happier when they're not, to avoid feeling even worse. People of course are not always straight with themselves.
Andrew4589 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 04:34 PM   #90
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Lots of people come here and assert that they have had such and such an experience, be it clairvoyance, seeing flying saucers (but not teapots!), or whatnot. Since this is a forum of (mostly) skeptics, evidence is the order of the day. Was yesterday, and will be tomorrow. Since Janov is making the claims (with your help, it seems) the burden of proof falls to him. It is not up to us to disprove anything, particularly not a negative.

Good luck in your endeavors. Just don't expect rational people to believe you sight unseen.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2008, 10:38 PM   #91
Andrew4589
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21
Thanks Moochie. And you're right, the burdon of proof is on Janov. The burdon of proof is also on those who want to claim that PT is nonsense too. Something isn't wrong until it is proven right. It's unknow until it's proven either way.

The only difference between me and the skeptics (as it seems) is that I'm going to do a very direct investigation into Janov's Primal Therapy. True, it might be 100% voodoo. I will find out.
Andrew4589 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2008, 06:49 AM   #92
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
and I can't pretend to myself that it didn't.
But the whole problem is that you can very easily pretend to yourself that it did. The whole reason anecdotes and personal accounts are not acceptable as evidence ie because people are easily fooled - by themselves, by other people and by the world in general. In order to know if something actually works, you have to go past the personal experience and make objective studies. The place where you, and many, many other people, are going wrong is in ignoring, or refsuing to accept, the human capacity for misinterpreting, misremembering and generally misunderstanding things. It doesn't matter how convincing a particular event was to you personally, it does not prove anything, even to yourself.

Quote:
All I wanted to say on this blog
What blog?

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
---Oh, I should include that I take "what the patient says" most seriously
Yeah, because being ill makes you so much more qualified than people who have been studying these things for their whole lives.

Originally Posted by Andrew4589 View Post
The burdon of proof is also on those who want to claim that PT is nonsense too.
No it isn't. The burden of proof is on one person and one person only - the person making claims.

Quote:
It's unknow until it's proven either way.
Sure. And the default position when something is unknown is the null hypothesis. If someone claims fairies exist, the default position is that they don't until some evidence is provided. If someone claims something cures a disease, the default position is that it doesn't until the evidence shows that it does.

Quote:
The only difference between me and the skeptics (as it seems) is that I'm going to do a very direct investigation into Janov's Primal Therapy. True, it might be 100% voodoo. I will find out.
No, the difference between you and skeptics is that you are not skeptical. That is, you accept primal therapy as reasonable until evidence is provided that it is not, which is the exact opposite of the position you should take, that primal therapy does not work until evidence is provided that it does.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2008, 03:14 PM   #93
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Andrew, further to Cuddles's post (above), I would draw your attention to the phenomenon of "False Memory Syndrome."

Quote:
According to the American Psychological Association, it is not currently possible to distinguish a true repressed memory from a false one without corroborating evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory
I think that this speaks to PT very directly. I would advise you to do some research in this area along with your investigation of PT.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2008, 01:21 AM   #94
DuckTapeFileMan
Thinker
 
DuckTapeFileMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 208
false memories?

What about lack of memories?

how can that be explained from the conventional point of view?
__________________
"We demand guaranteed rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." - Vroomfondel(Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[BBC])
DuckTapeFileMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2008, 08:15 AM   #95
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by DuckTapeFileMan View Post
false memories?

What about lack of memories?

how can that be explained from the conventional point of view?
What is there to explain? People don't remember everything. Most people remember very little from when they were young, and even less with any kind of reliability. If someone doesn't remember something, why would you need any more of an explanation than that they simply don't remember it? When it comes to allegedly repressed memories it's even worse, since there usually seems to be no evidence that the things supposedly being repressed ever even happened in the first place.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2008, 02:15 PM   #96
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
The notion of going into painful memories from the past, by unlocking the unconscious mind, and accepting the need to abandon one's defences is a frightnening thought for many...especially as one gets closer to actually doing it.

It is perfectly understandable that one would have reserved feelings about the integrity of such 'extreme' regressive therapies like Primal Therapy. When regressive psychotherapy is practiced incorrectly, the result can be severe abreactions and even psychosis. One has every right to be sceptical.

However, it is important to understand one thing about any therapy. The ultimate decision to let go and just do it, comes down to a raw trust between the patient and the therapist. Indeed, there is no science that can prove that any particular therapist is safe. It's a decision that the patient must make after very careful consideration.

In other words, you really have to trust yourself. If you feel that the therapist or therapy is not helping you, or able to help you, then you have to trust in your own personal feelings.

For many of us this is too difficult to do, because our ability to trust ourselves has been diminished by our defences. Our defences protect us by keeping us blind to the things that we can't cope with. Our defences can also keep us blind to the things that can help us.

Rather than going into an endless debate about whether Primal Therapy is good or bad, it would be better to learn as much as you can about the therapy and the Primal Therapy patients.

It's important for me to point out that many regressive psychotherapists like to call their therapy 'Primal Therapy' but actually use their own techniques which are not derived from Dr. Arthur Janov's therapy. Dr. Janov claims to have treated patients who had suffered even more psychological damage through the practice of 'pseudo-primal therapy'. A neurotic therapist will mistakenly interpret the needs or behaviour of his/her patient. This can be very dangerous.

All of this boils down to a conclusion that many of us share. "No thanks...I'd rather just have a safe chat". Just talking about stuff does not cause the repressed memories to emerge into consciousness, where they can be resolved. The talking must lead to feeling. When the patient is feeling, the information coming into consciousness is flowing in a natural, undefended way. The memory becomes clear and very detailed, and accurate. The patient experiences a feeling of 'knowing' (about what happened in the past, and how it has been affecting his/her behaviour). This feeling of 'knowing' does not occur during an abreaction (this is when the patient fights hard against the feeling, and this reaction is often misdiagnosed as feeling).

Nor does this feeling of 'knowing' occur during a psychotic episode. Psychosis is the invention of new, completely unreal 'beliefs' but a delusional belief never has the obvious sensation of a real belief.

Believe me?? You shouldn't.....you need to believe in yourself.

Last edited by Onion; 1st September 2008 at 02:29 PM.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2008, 06:35 PM   #97
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Onion View Post
The notion of going into painful memories from the past, by unlocking the unconscious mind, and accepting the need to abandon one's defences is a frightnening thought for many...especially as one gets closer to actually doing it.
And where's your evidence for this remarkable claim?

Quote:
It is perfectly understandable that one would have reserved feelings about the integrity of such 'extreme' regressive therapies like Primal Therapy. When regressive psychotherapy is practiced incorrectly, the result can be severe abreactions and even psychosis. One has every right to be sceptical.
More gobbledegook unsupported by anything except anecdotes.

Quote:
However, it is important to understand one thing about any therapy. The ultimate decision to let go and just do it, comes down to a raw trust between the patient and the therapist. Indeed, there is no science that can prove that any particular therapist is safe. It's a decision that the patient must make after very careful consideration.
"Careful consideration" of what? Isn't it much like how one would evaluate a prospective friend, except that the friend isn't claiming miraculous cures as a benefit of their friendship.

Quote:
In other words, you really have to trust yourself. If you feel that the therapist or therapy is not helping you, or able to help you, then you have to trust in your own personal feelings.
If prospective clients were able to do this, they wouldn't bother with the "therapy" in the first place.

Quote:
For many of us this is too difficult to do, because our ability to trust ourselves has been diminished by our defences. Our defences protect us by keeping us blind to the things that we can't cope with. Our defences can also keep us blind to the things that can help us.
This seems right out of the Primal Handbook. Where's the evidence? Describe "defences." What difference is there between a trusted friend and a "Primal Therapist," except that the latter sits on a cloud of unsubstantiated theory and charges a premium for that?

Quote:
Rather than going into an endless debate about whether Primal Therapy is good or bad, it would be better to learn as much as you can about the therapy and the Primal Therapy patients.
Precisely the advice offered by most pseudoscientific quackery.

Quote:
It's important for me to point out that many regressive psychotherapists like to call their therapy 'Primal Therapy' but actually use their own techniques which are not derived from Dr. Arthur Janov's therapy. Dr. Janov claims to have treated patients who had suffered even more psychological damage through the practice of 'pseudo-primal therapy'. A neurotic therapist will mistakenly interpret the needs or behaviour of his/her patient. This can be very dangerous.
As dangerous as Janov's unproven, unsubstantiated claims. See $cientology.

Quote:
All of this boils down to a conclusion that many of us share. "No thanks...I'd rather just have a safe chat". Just talking about stuff does not cause the repressed memories to emerge into consciousness, where they can be resolved. The talking must lead to feeling. When the patient is feeling, the information coming into consciousness is flowing in a natural, undefended way. The memory becomes clear and very detailed, and accurate. The patient experiences a feeling of 'knowing' (about what happened in the past, and how it has been affecting his/her behaviour). This feeling of 'knowing' does not occur during an abreaction (this is when the patient fights hard against the feeling, and this reaction is often misdiagnosed as feeling).
More theory directly lifted from the PT Handbook. No evidnece. And what is "neurosis"? What is "feeling"? Who can tell if a "feeling" is "flowing in a natural, undefined way"? Janov? How? Can you see how many holes there are in this?

Quote:
Nor does this feeling of 'knowing' occur during a psychotic episode. Psychosis is the invention of new, completely unreal 'beliefs' but a delusional belief never has the obvious sensation of a real belief.

Believe me?? You shouldn't.....you need to believe in yourself.
I do believe in myself. However, I have difficulty in taking anything you've offered here with a straight face.

I have seen "primallers" "primal" on cue, to please the "therapist" who filmed the charade for his own aggrandizement in the professional community of which he was a member. I've seen "primallers" "relive" past lives. I've seen "primallers" "re-experience" their passage through the birth canal.

I've seen a lot of deluded people do some pretty silly things.

Many of them split off to find succor with various "gurus" and other New Age pursuits when it became apparent that PT was a croc.

The one thing that seemed to elude most of them was the very real possibility that all of that stuff was a croc; ie, they'd been sold a bill of goods.

The worst aspect of PT is how all the disgruntled ex-primallers out there are held resposible for their own "failure" to "get it" -- just like every other screwed up cult in existence.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2008, 11:34 PM   #98
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
Hi Moochie.
I wrote that stuff in a context as if it is fact, only because it is easier to write it that way, instead of saying...."in my opinion"....or...."as far as I know"....or..."according to what I've read in various psychology books" at the beginning of every sentence.
I have no desire to provide the evidence to back up every sentence. If you require evidence, then you will need to look further.
Maybe some people do try to fake it. Maybe some people do turn to cults etc. Maybe every person who has ever been through any kind of regressive psychotherapy is a delusional hippy who likes to fake the healing process.
I'm not going to ask you to prove it.

The purpose of my comments was to highlight one main point: It is impossible to prove what a person is feeling. You cannot rely completely on 'evidence'. You must consider all the relevant information, and come to a decision as to whether Primal Therapy is worth trying or not.

I have looked at all sorts of so-called evidence, regarding 'mainstream' therapies, and primal therapy. I have also looked at my own personal experiences and compared them to the information provided in books written by many different authors. In my opinion, Dr. Arthur Janov's explanations and observations seem much more credible than others.

I'm not asking you to believe me. I am just stating my opinion.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 09:10 AM   #99
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Onion View Post
Hi Moochie.
I wrote that stuff in a context as if it is fact, only because it is easier to write it that way, instead of saying...."in my opinion"....or...."as far as I know"....or..."according to what I've read in various psychology books" at the beginning of every sentence.
I have no desire to provide the evidence to back up every sentence. If you require evidence, then you will need to look further.
Maybe some people do try to fake it. Maybe some people do turn to cults etc. Maybe every person who has ever been through any kind of regressive psychotherapy is a delusional hippy who likes to fake the healing process.
I'm not going to ask you to prove it.

The purpose of my comments was to highlight one main point: It is impossible to prove what a person is feeling. You cannot rely completely on 'evidence'. You must consider all the relevant information, and come to a decision as to whether Primal Therapy is worth trying or not.

I have looked at all sorts of so-called evidence, regarding 'mainstream' therapies, and primal therapy. I have also looked at my own personal experiences and compared them to the information provided in books written by many different authors. In my opinion, Dr. Arthur Janov's explanations and observations seem much more credible than others.

I'm not asking you to believe me. I am just stating my opinion.

Onion, there was a study done into the efficacy of a variety of "therapies" (I apply the quotes because the term is so nebulous) and the finding was that, regardless of the therapy or therapist, roughly one third of patients/clients "got better," one third stayed the same, and one third got worse. You might find the study on the net.

Meanwhile, have a look at this site for an evidence-based look at PT:

http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 02:09 PM   #100
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
Moochie, I wrote a large reply and tried to post it without backing it up first. The site logged me out and when I hit the back button, I had lost all my work.

Here's a really brief summary of what I wrote.

there is no science that can prove what a person is feeling
This message is irritating for some. It implies that psychotherapy is a waste of time. I don't think it is. But it is important to remember that there is no conclusive science surrounding the field of the humanities. There never can be because it is impossible to prove what a person is feeling

This delema has led to the reliance on 'Group Think". If enough people are in favour of an idea, it becomes a popular idea - not necessarily a scientific idea.

In a world where people are relying on 'authorities', it is easy to forget that the authorities are only doing the best they can.

Dr. Arthur Janov is widely respected in many scientific communities, but I don't accept his word on those grounds.

Primal Therapy is not for everyone. Some people are unable to continue with the therapy. The same is true for all therapies.

Like it or not, anyone who has made the decision to seek help, must trust in their own personal judgement. No science will give you the confirmation you are looking for.

Last edited by Onion; 3rd September 2008 at 02:20 PM.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 02:19 PM   #101
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
just one example among many.....electroconvulsive therapy is a popular idea....not a scientific one. It is widely accepted around the world by various 'scientisits'. It is becoming popular again here in New Zealand.

Electroconvulsive therapists readily admit that they know very little about what the electricity is doing to the brain. The therapy is designed to 'force' the patient to exhibit behaviour that is more suitable for integration with society.

Dr. Janov's Primal Center is opposed to Electroconvulsive therapy. They back up all of their statements and claims with very detailed, well documented, and well reviewed information. Not all of their information is popular. It is up to the individual to decide.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 06:02 PM   #102
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Onion View Post
just one example among many.....electroconvulsive therapy is a popular idea....not a scientific one. It is widely accepted around the world by various 'scientisits'. It is becoming popular again here in New Zealand.

Electroconvulsive therapists readily admit that they know very little about what the electricity is doing to the brain. The therapy is designed to 'force' the patient to exhibit behaviour that is more suitable for integration with society.

Dr. Janov's Primal Center is opposed to Electroconvulsive therapy. They back up all of their statements and claims with very detailed, well documented, and well reviewed information. Not all of their information is popular. It is up to the individual to decide.
I think you may have some misconceptions about ECT. I'd suggest you do some thorough research on the topic.

Did you bother to check out the site I mentioned?

http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/

This site realistically portrays what I'm on about.

If you're happy to throw your money at every beguiling bag of nonsense that's out there, then I can't stop you. But here's a surprise -- I got more from reading and applying the ideas presented in the book, A New Guide to Rational Living by Albert Ellis and Robert Harper than I got from 18 months of PT. And the book cost me all of $11.95 in 1980s Australian dollars.

Before you convince yourself of the efficacy of PT (or any other woo notions), try to imagine how it might not be efficacious. Take the skeptic's role and see what you come up with.

Seriously, I have known at least two hundred "primallers" here in Australia, and I don't think a one of them actually progressed in their lives due directly to PT. Some, like me, sort of woke up and realized that perhaps they were being conned, or perhaps they expected too much. One of the "therapists" who sat with me left PT behind and went on to university to obtain a degree in psychology. That is to say, while practicing PT she had no qualifications of any sort, except that she'd been through the "therapy" as a client/patient.

None of this is to say definitively that PT doesn't help some people. I just have seen no evidence of it.


M.

Last edited by Moochie; 3rd September 2008 at 06:21 PM.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 06:12 PM   #103
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by Onion View Post
just one example among many.....electroconvulsive therapy is a popular idea....not a scientific one. It is widely accepted around the world by various 'scientisits'. It is becoming popular again here in New Zealand.

Electroconvulsive therapists readily admit that they know very little about what the electricity is doing to the brain. The therapy is designed to 'force' the patient to exhibit behaviour that is more suitable for integration with society...
When I worked as an aide in a private psychiatric hospital, I got to babysit patients who were given insulin shock therapy and electroconvulsive shock. When I asked the chief psychiatrist how it worked he gave me a bunch of reprints to read about the history of the treatment, but no rationale of why it was supposed to work. When questioned further he said, "It's like when your TV is on the fritz. Sometimes if you whack it, it clears up the problem."
It is now known as a case of avoidance conditioning. You get shocked every day until you cheer up.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 06:16 PM   #104
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
When I worked as an aide in a private psychiatric hospital, I got to babysit patients who were given insulin shock therapy and electroconvulsive shock. When I asked the chief psychiatrist how it worked he gave me a bunch of reprints to read about the history of the treatment, but no rationale of why it was supposed to work. When questioned further he said, "It's like when your TV is on the fritz. Sometimes if you whack it, it clears up the problem."
It is now known as a case of avoidance conditioning. You get shocked every day until you cheer up.
That's about as jaundiced a view as I've seen. Have you bothered to try to find any positive outcomes for ECT and the like?


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 06:18 PM   #105
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
double post

Last edited by Jeff Corey; 3rd September 2008 at 06:21 PM.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 06:20 PM   #106
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Besides the well docmented memory loss?http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/ect/effects.htm
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 06:41 PM   #107
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
Besides the well docmented memory loss?http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/ect/effects.htm

Lots of data is documented, and you will need to look at that as critically as any other "evidence."

There are actually people out there -- look for them -- who chose ECT because nothing else worked. There were side effects, but not unexpected. For some, ECT is the only thing that worked.

On the face of it it might look barbaric, but it is anything but. It's not for most, but it is for some the treatment of choice. I would not deny them that choice, no matter what my preconceptions are/were.

Note that I'm talking about seriously ill people here, people for whom nothing else worked and who survived multiple suicide attempts before their ECT. It does make a difference in some people's lives, whether you like it or not.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2008, 07:20 PM   #108
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
Hi again Moochie.

Just for the record, the Primal Therapy practiced in Australia is entirely different to the 'real' Primal Therapy practiced in Venice, California. The Dr. Janov Primal Center is the one that first started Primal Therapy and has by far the most experience and knowledge with the Primal process. The Dr. Arthur Janov Primal Center considers the Australian practices to be highly dangerous, and do not associate themselves with these 'mock' primal therapists.



Moochie, you have given me a link to an author who does not supply any evidence in any form, that can show that Primal Therapy is unsafe or ineffective. Instead, the author asks many questions, as if the questions are proof in themselves.

The author does not seem to be aware that the questions have already been answered in great detail in the books that the author claims to have read. The author seems to make implications about primal therapy techniques, without being clear as to whether the techniques mentioned are actual techinques practiced at the Dr. Janov Primal Center, or just hypothetical techniques to fit a hypothetical situation. There's a lot of "what if..." and "don't you think..." in this student's website.

I could go from one link to the next, to search for the promised evidence, but I always end up with opinions and speculations and hypotheses. Much of this information is backed up with more opinions and speculations and hypotheses. I guess eventually one could be confused into thinking this is evidence.

I am so tired of this crap.

If the author had some bad experiences at the Primal Center, and is now psychologically no better or even worse....then that is sad and unfortunate.

Do you want to provide a link that points directly to some hard evidence?

You won't find any. Nor will you find any for the 'mainstream' therapies.

This is why there is no governing body that has the power to stop some of the most apalling techniques (in my opinion) that are almost as bad as lobotomy.

There is no governing body that has the power to stop surgeons from conducting unnecessary experiments on unborn children. I'm talking about experiments that cause psychological trauma on the person in the womb. I have witnessed television footage of such events. I have witnessed television footage of a woman being brought back to semi-consciousness (by greatly reducing the anaesthetic) so that she could answer the surgeon's questions, while her heart was exposed and beating for everyone to see.
The pain caused by these surgical techniques is not always felt by the patient....the pain is repressed by the patient...much to the fascination of the surgeon.

There is no governing body that has the power to stop Electroconvulsive Therapy. There is no governing body that has the power to stop invasive Hypnotherapy, and 'dangerous' meditation experiments.

There is no governing body that has the power to stop a wide variety of wreckless, experimental psychotherapies.

Unless the therapist does something CRIMINAL, you can pretty much do what you like, once you are a 'qualified' therapist.

This is the real world we live in. The therapist or surgeon or cult leader is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

My friend suffered a psychotic episode during an experiment conducted by his therapist (not primal therapy). During the psychosis, the therapist began to cry and left the room. My friend was left to get through the psychotic episode on his own.

You don't need to convince me of the dangers of bad therapy. You don't need to talk to me about scientology, or any religion or cult.

Read a little more about what it feels like to experience a Primal. Apparently (I don't know for sure), a Primal is just a natural event that happens to people all over the world. Many of these people have never heard of Primal Therapy. It is when a traumatic feeling is felt properly for the first time, and understood properly for the first time. In a safe environment, this event happens naturally. When the feeling is understood properly, then the conscious mind no longer feels the need to defend against the 'invisible' feeling. The traumatic memory never goes away, but the emotional and physical reaction to the 'now visible' trauma does go away.

The ongoing effects of an 'invisible' trauma can be very subtle....but can be enough to make your life miserable. Simply not being loved enough when you are very young, is all it takes to create the 'program' that makes us over-react to the smallest problems in life.

Most patients who are successful at allowing themselves to Primal, end up experiencing most of their primals away from the Primal Center, in the safety of their own homes.

It sounds weird, but not that weird. According to the patients, the weird part is the feeling of slipping through your defences, which always has a threatening vulnerable feeling. This is the beginning of the primal, and can be the hardest part to get through. Once you get past the scarey defensive reaction, the feeling that follows is different. The PRIMAL feeling begins. The primal feeling is the feeling that belongs to the trauma. If you were burnt physically, you will feel burnt. If you were frightened in a car accident, you will feel frightened and will see and feel the accident happening. If you were rejected at a time when you really needed mummy....then you will feel rejected...etc etc. The primal feeling is the real one - the one that you were unable to feel at the time of the trauma.

I haven't explained why a traumatic feeling becomes repressed, or why we need to 'unrepress' it. It's about the way the brain protects itself and holds on to the information for later recovery. Repression is the body's way of allowing the heart to beat at a survivable rate while the trauma is happening. It takes too long to explain properly...I have to go to work now.

If primal therapy doesn't work for me, then that will be a shame....but I want to find out if it can. (NOT in Australia).

Last edited by Onion; 3rd September 2008 at 07:53 PM.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 12:47 PM   #109
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Onion View Post
Hi again Moochie.

Just for the record, the Primal Therapy practiced in Australia is entirely different to the 'real' Primal Therapy practiced in Venice, California. The Dr. Janov Primal Center is the one that first started Primal Therapy and has by far the most experience and knowledge with the Primal process. The Dr. Arthur Janov Primal Center considers the Australian practices to be highly dangerous, and do not associate themselves with these 'mock' primal therapists.
Perhaps I haven't explained my position adequately. I undertook PT in the late 70s, when it was brought to Australia by a psychiatrist who had trained with Janov. I wouldn't have a clue about PT in Australia today. I'm surprised it is still around.


Quote:
Moochie, you have given me a link to an author who does not supply any evidence in any form, that can show that Primal Therapy is unsafe or ineffective. Instead, the author asks many questions, as if the questions are proof in themselves.
The site suggests a way for you to find your own evidence, if such evidence exists. It's called "the scientific method."

<snip>

Quote:
I am so tired of this crap.
How do you think I feel?

Quote:
If the author had some bad experiences at the Primal Center, and is now psychologically no better or even worse....then that is sad and unfortunate.
The author simply woke up to the fact that PT is just another fanciful method for depriving the gullible of their money, and often much more.

Quote:
Do you want to provide a link that points directly to some hard evidence?
This is the same fallacious reasoning all believers in nonsense exhibit. The onus is on Janov to provide evidence, since he makes the claims, much in the same way that the onus is on god believers to provide evidence their god/s exists/s.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.<snip>


Look, you will, of course, do as you see fit. I hope that you get out of the experience whatever it is you feel you need.

If, after properly evaluating PT using some well applied reason and logic you decide that perhaps it isn't the remarkable breakthrough it's claimed to be, you might benefit from the book A New Guide to Rational Living by Ellis & Harper. It provides sound advice and techniques for obtaining some degree of emotional maturity that have stood me in good stead for a long time now. And it appears to be based firmly in reality.

I'm not sure if it's still in print -- the copy I have is dated 1975 -- but if not, you could probably find a used copy somewhere.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 04:45 PM   #110
DuckTapeFileMan
Thinker
 
DuckTapeFileMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 208
I have some doubts about PT myself, although I am a believer(since1988ish), praise the lord!

but when people say things like

Quote:
The author simply woke up to the fact that PT is just another fanciful method for depriving the gullible of their money, and often much more
is this not a claim? Should this not be backed up by the sort of evidence that people are asking Janov to provide?


The way people talk about Primal Therapy, in terms of success or failure, one would think that the "human condition" was a simple matter like dentistry and rotten teeth-hey perhaps dentistry is a way to deprive people of their money, through suppression of chemicals that people could just swill their mouth with a few times a day to wash away all the tooth decaying crap......perhaps lots of things are a way to deprive people of their money....but perhaps, just one in ten people actually DO receive some sort of cure from primal therapy.... would that be any kind of success rate? well it would for that one person.
__________________
"We demand guaranteed rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." - Vroomfondel(Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[BBC])
DuckTapeFileMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 05:07 PM   #111
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Thanks for posting that link, Moochie (you did it awhile ago, I know, but a belated "thanks" to you anyway). That's one of the best sites I've seen synthesizing a lot of stuff I've read pointing to the problems with PST.

I strongly agree with the quote from Singer et al's book Crazy Therapies regarding the severe lack of science education, critical thinking, and basic philosophy of science in many undergraduate curricula and graduate clinical psychology programs. This is a huge part of the problem, and I would also add (in the case of Andrew/Onion-- perhaps the same person?) that there is an aversion to learning about basic research methodology and philosophy of science.

Awhile ago when Andrew responded to one of my earlier posts admitting that he had never had any formal psychology or research training, I suggested that he take a look at a basic research methodology book. He ignored my suggestion and later said that he would do something along the lines of "just go and experience primal scream himself and reach his own conclusions" (not a direct quote, just to highlight his last point before he stopped posting).

This sort of belief-driven intransigence and unwillingness to learn the basics of how clinical research-practitioners go about testing therapies is a disgraceful affront to open-minded skepticism and intellectual honesty, and I really don't see the need to keep this topic afloat until PST believers offer some appropriate evidence for consideration aside from anecdotal tangents fused with psychodynamic woo.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 05:20 PM   #112
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by Iconoclast08 View Post
Thanks for posting that link, Moochie (you did it awhile ago, I know, but a belated "thanks" to you anyway). That's one of the best sites I've seen synthesizing a lot of stuff I've read pointing to the problems with PST.

I strongly agree with the quote from Singer et al's book Crazy Therapies regarding the severe lack of science education, critical thinking, and basic philosophy of science in many undergraduate curricula and graduate clinical psychology programs. This is a huge part of the problem, and I would also add (in the case of Andrew/Onion-- perhaps the same person?) that there is an aversion to learning about basic research methodology and philosophy of science.

Awhile ago when Andrew responded to one of my earlier posts admitting that he had never had any formal psychology or research training, I suggested that he take a look at a basic research methodology book. He ignored my suggestion and later said that he would do something along the lines of "just go and experience primal scream himself and reach his own conclusions" (not a direct quote, just to highlight his last point before he stopped posting).

This sort of belief-driven intransigence and unwillingness to learn the basics of how clinical research-practitioners go about testing therapies is a disgraceful affront to open-minded skepticism and intellectual honesty, and I really don't see the need to keep this topic afloat until PST believers offer some appropriate evidence for consideration aside from anecdotal tangents fused with psychodynamic woo.

The advice to "suck it and see" is a constant refrain from hawkers of odd fantasies hereabouts. We need not step into a cake of cow dung to know what it is.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 05:28 PM   #113
DuckTapeFileMan
Thinker
 
DuckTapeFileMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 208
yeah but you do need to take a sample and send it off for analyses.
__________________
"We demand guaranteed rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." - Vroomfondel(Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[BBC])
DuckTapeFileMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 05:48 PM   #114
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by DuckTapeFileMan View Post
yeah but you do need to take a sample and send it off for analyses.
I did better; I checked it out personally.

I still have some original copies of the Primal Journal, if anyone's interested.

All offers considered.

I Also have original copies of several Primal books, including what was considered a benchmark in the literature of PT by Janov and E.Michael Holden, Primal Man, The new Consciousness.

I'll let you research Holden's "contribution" to PT theory -- you might start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_ta...King/Archive_2

Whatever you do, please acquaint yourself with the literature and history of PT before posting from the hip.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2008, 05:58 PM   #115
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
The uber Primal Scream song:


Mother, You had Me I never had you
I wanted you but you didn't want me
So I got to tell you
Goodbye , Goodbye

Father, You left me but I never left you
I needed you but you didn't need me
So I just got to tell you
Goodbye , Goodbye

Children, Don't do what I have done
I couldn't walk so I tried to run
So I got to tell you
Goodbye , Goodbye
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2008, 07:00 AM   #116
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The uber Primal Scream song:


Mother, You had Me I never had you
I wanted you but you didn't want me
So I got to tell you
Goodbye , Goodbye

Father, You left me but I never left you
I needed you but you didn't need me
So I just got to tell you
Goodbye , Goodbye

Children, Don't do what I have done
I couldn't walk so I tried to run
So I got to tell you
Goodbye , Goodbye
I think Janov was hoping Lennon would prove as durable a marketing angle is Cruise has become for $cientology. Alas, it didn't work. Lennon looked at it, and subsequently dropped it.

There's no evidence I know of that Lennon bought any of it, except, perhaps, as fodder for his art.


M.
Moochie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2008, 11:27 AM   #117
DuckTapeFileMan
Thinker
 
DuckTapeFileMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by Moochie View Post
I think Janov was hoping Lennon would prove as durable a marketing angle is Cruise has become for $cientology. Alas, it didn't work. Lennon looked at it, and subsequently dropped it.

There's no evidence I know of that Lennon bought any of it, except, perhaps, as fodder for his art.


M.

I remember reading a bit of the Beatle's biography, in the library about ten years ago, and there was an account of how John Lennon's father visited him, after the therapy, and how Lennon was blaming his father and saying/ranting that his father had driven him insane.

I think the father said there was a presence of evil, in the house, or something; which I can sort of understand, if one doesn't complete primal therapy, then one has opened up a very nasty can of worms, that just cause chaos.

From that account, it seems as though primal therapy was a little more than a passing interest for Lennon, although not all together positive.
__________________
"We demand guaranteed rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." - Vroomfondel(Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[BBC])
DuckTapeFileMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2008, 01:46 PM   #118
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by Moochie View Post
I did better; I checked it out personally.

I still have some original copies of the Primal Journal, if anyone's interested.

All offers considered.

I Also have original copies of several Primal books, including what was considered a benchmark in the literature of PT by Janov and E.Michael Holden, Primal Man, The new Consciousness. <SNIP> M.
Yeah, I had no idea how downright bizarre some of this stuff was until I checked it out for myself. Four stars for a vivid imagination, negative four stars for reality testing.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2008, 08:46 PM   #119
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
I am not Andrew4589.

Try to understand the point that Andrew and I have been trying to illustrate. If you need to read books to learn how to be accurate and scientific with your thought processes, then you are unable to realise that critical thinking cannot be taught. The methods you have learned can easily lead you to the wrong conclusion if you are lost in a sea of scientific method, rather than using your natural intelligence.
Scientists often struggle to see the forest for the trees because they are often simplifying information to make it fit into a simple mathematical formula.

We live in a world that worships the sciences, so 'psychological scientists' get more credit and freedom than they deserve.

Most scientists dealing with astronomy, believe that they know the size of the universe, and how it began. Their methodical thinking has led them to a confident conclusion, despite the fact that they have left out some very basic variables which prove their theories to be nothing more than hypothetical. These conclusive scientists feel secure in their group, and often refer to the 'outsiders' as weirdos and crazy and rediculous etc. A few years later the outsiders prove that the 'insiders' methods are flawed, and so the science changes, and so on.

Forensic science all around the world has been woefully unscientific for over 30 years, and many convicted people have recently been proven to be innocent. Forensic methods are now changing rapidly.

But wait....shrinks are smarter than that....right??? You be the judge.

If you actually think about this point:
it is impossible to prove what a person is feeling
then you might realise that your argument for proper scientific evaluation is pointless.

There is no proper science that can prove or disprove any psychotherapy. Don't just shoot past this point like it is meaningless.

Don't be impressed by the quantity of literature out there. The literature is an attempt to prove what cannot be proven. This attempt will continue on and on as long as scientisits continue to ignore the fundamental point:
it is impossible to prove what a person is feeling

Stop asking for evidence!!!!!!

Ask for information. Don't worry about whether the information follows the guidelines agreed upon by a bunch of scientists. Scientists are always disagreeing amongst them selves about the correct methods for evaluation. Just focus on what the information is saying. Use your natural intelligence.


Moochie, it is a shame that you were unsuccessful with your therapy. I hope to be more successful....maybe I won't be.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2008, 09:22 PM   #120
Onion
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by DuckTapeFileMan View Post
I have some doubts about PT myself, although I am a believer(since1988ish), praise the lord!

but when people say things like



is this not a claim? Should this not be backed up by the sort of evidence that people are asking Janov to provide?


The way people talk about Primal Therapy, in terms of success or failure, one would think that the "human condition" was a simple matter like dentistry and rotten teeth-hey perhaps dentistry is a way to deprive people of their money, through suppression of chemicals that people could just swill their mouth with a few times a day to wash away all the tooth decaying crap......perhaps lots of things are a way to deprive people of their money....but perhaps, just one in ten people actually DO receive some sort of cure from primal therapy.... would that be any kind of success rate? well it would for that one person.

This is a good example of independant thinking.....but not 'scientific' thinking. This does not mean that DuckTape's point should be ignored.

In the scientific community, DuckTape's style of discussion would usually be ignored because it does not follow a path that leads to the possibility of evidence.
Onion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.