Psychic New York
psyc...@hotmail.com
Do you need insight into your career, relationship, finances, etc., then a
session with a psychic,tarot reader, or even an astrologer could help.
If it's a question of wanting to know what you brought into this life
with you and where you are going, a numerologist, a palmist or an
astrologer will answer all your questions and more.
A psychic healer can help with health-related problems. A clinical
past-life therapist can unravel unresolved emotional issues and help you
obtain your goals.
You don't know who would be right for your particular problem? Perhaps
you have already been to see a few but left feeling disillusioned or with
only an empty wallet. Now if you had bought THE New York Guide [yes, one
does exist] you would have saved yourself a lot of time, effort, money
and disappointment.
This extremely informative Guide lists psychics, tarot readers,
astrologers, numerologists, and palmists but only those who are highly
regarded in their specialized field, and have been in professional
practice for some years.
You can become acquainted with the specialities, techniques and styles of
New York's foremost practioners before you ring for an appointment. You
will know how long the session takes, prices, their clientele, languages
spoken, and even if taping is permitted (some psychics don't this as it
causes interference).
If you are not familiar with the divinatory arts, a short history on each
will help guide you to the right choice.
For an original Christmas gift - buy the book and make an appointment for
your friend(s).
Autographed copies are available direct from the author,
Patricia Collins, 292 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10025 --
or phone 212-665-3356.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Nona and Kari
No, you are wrong. Normal everyday therapist who have patients daily
for normal therapy are also trained to do this kind of therapy. PhD's,
MFCC's, LCSW's, Hypnotherapists. This is considered the cutting edge of
pyscotherapy. I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works?? No
matter if what is brought out can be proven to be from a past life, or an
old nightmare, whatever the cause, working through it via hypnosis through
what is called Past Life Therapy has helped millions of people throughout
the world. Even psychiatrists have used this process. It is arrogant to
condemn something that works, just because you believe differently. IT
WORKS!!!.
J. Karlin wrote in message <34565614...@eden.com>...
>Nona and Kari wrote:
>
>> I clinical past life therapist is a person who attempts to help you
go
>> back into past lives and by doing this, resolves issues that are
effecting a
>> person in present life.
>
>You mean that's what they claim to do. And by adding the
>word 'clinical' to their title they attempt to imbue
>their newage-speak 'profession' with some medical-sounding
>authority.
>
>> It is done through hypnosis.
>
>Which is a great tool to plant suggestions in people's
>minds about false memories.
>
>> What is important to note is that people do get better.
>
>No, what is IMPORTANT is whether or not the claims
>made by the 'practitioners' have ANY scientific
>credibility whatsoever. And they do not.
>
>Furthermore, when you say that people 'do get better',
>this presumes they had some real and medically diagnosed
>malady to begin with---instead of merely being mildly
>neurotic to the extent that fantasias about 'past lives'
>or being kidnapped by outer-space aliens serves to
>'snap them out of it'. Perhaps a nice trip to Disneyland
>would have served the same purpose.
>
>> Many Psychologists and therapist trained in hypnosis use this
>> form of therapy.
>
>I'm pretty sure quite a few psychologists would call it
>something other than 'therapy'.
>
>> It is as common as psychology itself.
>
>If so, then psychology, as a practice, has some serious
>ethical problems to work through. On the other hand, I
>doubt what you've stated here bears any relation to
>reality (not that the 'r' word HAS much relevance to
>people looking for their 'past lives').
>
>> To insult or demean someone who gives this information
>> is mean spirited and very cynical.
>
>I don't believe in the tooth fairy either.
>
>Does that make me cynical?
>
>Well, better cynical than grotesquely stupid.
>
>> I suppose you are also very unhappy.
>
>On the contrary, shooting such easy ducks makes me
>stretch and purr.
>
>(jk)
Nona and Kari
I am not very good at cross posting or removing stuf from cross posting.
Several times I have recieved hate mail from people because I did not erase
cross posting and actually sent stuff to flame groups and got email and ahte
mail I didn't like. So I simply deleted everyting and wrote in the the
paranormal newsgroup. As far as how it works, for example. say a person is
unreasonably terrified of being in a fire and they have nightmares of it.
It goes on for years and years. there never was a fire and no one can
figure out why this person is so afraid of being stuck in a bruning
building. They go to a therapist and no matter how far back in the person's
life they go via hypnosis no fire, so they go backbefore birth and suddenly
the person is remembering being burned alive. The therapist talks them
through it and when they wake up they either remember it or not, depending
on the severity of the reaction during the episode during hypnosis.
Usually, once is enough, and can actually save money especially in regards
to phobias. Some phobic people never recover and have therapy forever.
This is why it is considered cutting edge.
usually after the first time this occurs, the person is better, some cured
forever. Nightmares cease. It depends on the person and the phobia and how
it effects the person in everyday life. Whether the fire happened in this
life or a previous life, or at all is irrelevent. what matters is the
person can get on with their life. The mind is a very complex part of the
body/mind/spirit connection and can cause many abnormalities. I understand
scoffing at it, but sheesh.
Kari
Mile 23 wrote in message ...
>In article <63644t$n...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "Nona and Kari"
><nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> No, you are wrong. Normal everyday therapist who have patients daily
>>for normal therapy are also trained to do this kind of therapy. PhD's,
>>MFCC's, LCSW's, Hypnotherapists. This is considered the cutting edge of
>>pyscotherapy.
>
>If this is true, then why was your message not also cross-posted to
>sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated?
>
>
>>I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works?? No
>>matter if what is brought out can be proven to be from a past life, or an
>>old nightmare, whatever the cause, working through it via hypnosis through
>>what is called Past Life Therapy has helped millions of people throughout
>>the world. Even psychiatrists have used this process. It is arrogant to
>>condemn something that works, just because you believe differently. IT
>>WORKS!!!.
>
>It works to... do what?
>
>Make rich people poor?
Nona and Kari
He/She was probably a lord who tortured his serfs in another
life...:):):):)
[Heavy Duty Sarcasm]
>> If this is true, then why was your message not also cross-posted to
>> sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated?
>
>
>> It works to... do what?
>>
>> Make rich people poor?
>
>Are you really an arrogant, pig-headed, close-minded lout? Or do you
>just play one on Usenet?
></MILD SARCASM>
>
>There's an interesting phenomenon associated with the human mind. If we
>think something will work, it usually will (provided it's not outside
>the bounds of physics, etc...). If we think it won't it usually won't.
>Obviously, for you, past-life regression wouldn't work. For someone who
>thinks it will, it will.
>
> - Theo
Michael Smith
Apparently, on Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:37:36 -0600, psych...@bedlam.com
wrote:
: Do you need insight into your career, relationship, finances, etc? Then
: a session with an experienced psychotic will wake you the hell up and
: get your priorities in order, and make you feel happy just to be alive.
:
: If it's a question of wanting to know what you brought into this life
: with you and where it will all go, a cannibal, serial killer or mad
: surgeon on acid can "lay it all out" for you, so to speak.
:
: A psychotic killer can help with health-related problems, permanently. A
: clinical schitzophrenic can unravel unresolved emotional issues at your
: expense and help you obtain some impressive looking scars to win the
: babes.
:
: You don't know who would be right for your particular problem? Perhaps
: you have already been to see a few but left feeling disillusioned or with
: only an empty wallet. Now if you had bought THE New York Guide [yes, one
: does exist] you would have saved yourself a lot of time, effort, money
: and disappointment.
:
: cannibals, child molesters, and lawyers but only those who are highly
: regarded in their specialized field, and have been in professional
: practice for some years.
:
: You can become acquainted with the specialities, techniques and styles of
: will know how long the session takes, prices, their victims, languages
: spoken, perfered methods of killing, and even if taping is permitted
: (some psychotics don't allow this as it causes interference).
:
: If you are not familiar with the various types of mental and emotional
: illnesses, a short history on each will help guide you to the right choice.
:
: For an original Christmas gift - buy the book and make an appointment for
: order that you might inherit. Garunteed discrete.
:
: Autographed copies are available direct from the author,
: Hannibal Lecter PhD, Psychiatric Ward, Belmont Hospital, New York, NY
: 10025 -- or phone 212-555-LUNY.
--
Blessed Be,
Michael Smith
"Bad moon rise, another war, another crime.
"Are we going to see another day?" -Sepultura
DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necesarily reflect those
of Loyola University's Department of Mathematics and
Computer Sciences.
Vessekx
Mile 23 wrote:
< SNIP >
Nona and Kari
I didn't negin this thread, I responded to it. I am not a person who
ever starts a croos posting because I don't know enough to do it very well.
someone else began the cross posting so get off my back...
Mile 23 wrote in message ...
>That's not what I'm taking issue with. Past-life regression might be just
>the metaphor that helps someone understand whatever is holding them up in
>(their current) life.
>
>What I take issue with is someone cross-posting an ad on usenet (to
>alt.cardgame.magic, no less!) saying that through some vague waving of
>hands and mystical mumblings, they can Solve Your Problems, be they
>emotional, spiritual, or *medical.* Jess Karlin just beat me to the punch.
>
>Now I will quit my rantings, lest those on alt.cardgame.magic get upset
>with this crossposted nonsense.
Sar Draconis
Pat Zalweski wrote:
>
> In article <34565614...@eden.com>,
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@eden.com> wrote:
> >Nona and Kari wrote:
> >
> >> I clinical past life therapist is a person who attempts to help you go
> >> back into past lives and by doing this, resolves issues that are effecting
> a
> >> person in present life.
> who claimed she could do this. I was skeptical at best because though i
> believe in them, the only way I would accept them was if the they put me right
> under with hypnosis and I woke up speaking 17th gutural french like that
> English housewife did in the Biloxi tapes back in the 60's
>
> The day she left for the reading I decided to try and see what I could get
> from my wife before she went. I got impressions of France, a large estate
> house and the time was about louis the sun king's reign. When she went to the
> clairvoyant the person mentioned that she had been in France in an incarnation
> with her present husband where he was an advisor to the King (lucky me) at the
> time of around the 16th 17th century. Quite amazing that we both came up with
> it. But no names where given. It appeared to me that we both got the same
> impression but lacked any real depth. For someone wanting a past life more in
> depth info is needed and in future I will stick with the Biloxi scenario
Ou la la c'est le cas du roi soleil et le petit gris-gris. "L'insolite
-- c'est moi!"
SAR
Pat Zalweski
LazzWaldo
Marsha wrote:
A buncha French horseshit.
Okay, Marsha, you certainly speak French better than I. But ou still haven't
addressed the issue of how astrology is used as a way to discriminate among,
and against, people.
The French makes your evasions sound smooth, but they are still evasions.
Marsha
That wasn't the subject of this thread :)
Marsha
LazzWaldo
Marsha wrote, evading again:
LazzWaldo wrote:
>> The French makes your evasions sound smooth, but they are still evasions.
>That wasn't the subject of this thread :)
SO? You don't seem to be restricted to being on-topic in any other threads, why
this one? Funny, even when you can be on-topic, you still evade the tough
questions, and then state that you have "no more time, you have something else
to do".
Yeah, like posting in other threads without the pressure of having to answer
the tough questions.
Run away, Marsha! Run away!
Marsha
I was just helping you create your own reality Lazz. My answer is in
another thread...
Marsha
Rick Ellis
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Gee, Marsha! You said you didn't have time for this! I guess you're learning
> well from your mentor Ed and learning to lie like a dog!
Doesn't Edmond often complain he doesn't have time for this?
LazzWaldo
Marsha blathered:
>I was just helping you create your own reality Lazz.
Oh yes, you grow less credible in my reality (that is, the world's reality)
everytime you post.
>My answer is in another thread...
No, your *evasion* is in another thread....
LazzWaldo
Peter F. Curran
In article <345A9D86...@mindspring.com>,
Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> writes:
>LazzWaldo wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Yeah, like posting in other threads without the pressure of having to
>> answer the tough questions.
>>
>> Run away, Marsha! Run away!
>
>another thread...
>
>Marsha
Bullshit. I've seen all your posts and you always fail to
address the real issues. Cover your ears with your hands
Marsha, and hum a happy tune. If you don't, a stray rational
thought might creep into your brain and undermine your silly
belief in asstrology.
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
EHWollmann
>From: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran)
>Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 10:11 EST
>Message-id: <63fgqu$b1i$4...@proxye1.nycap.rr.com>
>In article <345A9D86...@mindspring.com>,
> Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> writes:
>>LazzWaldo wrote:
>[snip]
>>> Yeah, like posting in other threads without the pressure of having to
>>> answer the tough questions.
>>> Run away, Marsha! Run away!
>>I was just helping you create your own reality Lazz. My answer is in
>>another thread...
>>Marsha
>Bullshit. I've seen all your posts and you always fail to
>address the real issues. Cover your ears with your hands
>Marsha, and hum a happy tune. If you don't, a stray rational
>thought might creep into your brain and undermine your silly
>belief in asstrology.
Oh here we go with the logical fallacies and ad hominem abusive attacks because
you are devoid of logic. Marsha has calmly and logically defeated your
hyperbole so often you should be ashamed old man.
--
I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the wonderful
and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the psyche, when learned
properly and studied in depth like any other subject worthy of intelligent
investigation. This may take as much as 8-10 years like other complex
paradigms. It is not a belief system or religion and can be learned by anyone
with patience and diligence. It is operationally obvious once this hurdle is
overcome. Since you have no skill in this complex craft, analyzing it is
impossible for you. You would only be exercising fallacious thinking processes
and bias. (pls refer to Brant Watson and Paul Schlyter via Deja News search-
who have demonstrated through conversing with me repeatedly just HOW lost the
uninformed can get). I really don't have the time to repeat that process with
you. I hope you understand.
If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail yourself
of some up to date and in depth psychological/astrological texts. These will
allow you to see by true skeptical investigation and objective analysis the
validity of astrology and its co-functioning with psychology and many other
helpful paradigms. If you would like recommendations to start your interesting
and exciting study, I would be glad to reference some texts for you.
Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow yourself
to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively questioning in the
search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make judgments from predjudice or
ignorance. This is not an insult simply an observation of your behavior. This
is simply my best effort to explain -not to incite. Please have respect for
the diverse opinions people hold, understanding the subject will allow you to
dispel this predjudice.
If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real understanding
of either psychology, astrology or metaphysics I would be more than happy to
answer what I can, or assist you in your understanding in that quest.
Thank you for your maturity in this matter,
Sincerely,
Edmond Wollmann
LazzWaldo
Ed Wollmann wrote:
>Oh here we go with the logical fallacies and ad hominem abusive attacks
because
>you are devoid of logic.
Then you yourself have proven yourself to be totally devoid of logic, because
you've posted far more logical fallaciesa and ad homineim attacks thatn ANYONE
here!
>Marsha has calmly and logically defeated your
>hyperbole so often you should be ashamed old man.
No, she hasn't! She evades, dissembles, and runs away everytime she's cornered!
She doesn't even have the balls, like you , to stand there and make herself
look even more foolish!
By the way Ed, You've been caught LYING! And you lost 2 accounts, so you are a
LIAR and a LOSER!
dust
I could not have said this better.
Cathy, RN, Adjunct Proff, Clinical Psyche
Rimblesah wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> > >I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works??
> >
> > It doesn't work. You cannot cite any serious research which shows that
> > memories induced by "past life regression" are real memories.
>
> I think you're missing the point, Tom. The prevailing attitude in
> research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude in
> clinical psych is, "whatever works".
>
> If they get better, what does it matter if you understood the process
> correctly?
>
> -Rimblesah
> Why be normal?
LazzWaldo
> If they get better, what does it matter if you understood the process
> correctly?
Because you'll never know if it's something YOU did, or something else entirely
that is making them "get better", jackass!
EHWollmann
>From: "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@eden.com>
>Date: Sun, Nov 2, 1997 10:04 EST
>Message-id: <345C9646...@eden.com>
>Rimblesah wrote:
>> I think you're missing the point, Tom. The prevailing attitude in
>> research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude in
>> clinical psych is, "whatever works".
The problem is "publish or perish" and to do so, it must be experimental-which
may or may not address either internal OR external validity.
>'works' in what way? If the notion is to lie to the patient
>in order to make them feel better then I think there is
>a fundamental ethical problem with the 'therapy' and the
>'therapists' using it.
Well there is the idea of placebos and the Hawthorne effect-whats the
difference? And what about diffusion of responsibility and individuation?
These are real effects and if someone wants to manipulate them to ensure
greater efficacy why not? Why learn them to begin with?
>In other words, an effective fraud SHOULD be able to
>make his victim feel better, just long enough to get
>his money, and then remind him to come back for more
>'treatment' should he suffer a relapse.
I am afraid you don't understand the psyche, sometimes love and understanding
are "what" heals a person. No money, and no "facts" involved. Tx are always
best guesstimates especially in therapies.
>All you are suggesting here is that 'clinical psychologists'
>are morally and professionally no better than the people
>who man the phones in the psychic sweatshops. I believe
>that is ALSO the argument made by the companies that
>run those particular swindles.
Well the problem is money-running a bunch of MMPIs to evaluate police
officers-or reinforcing the delusions behind ADD in order to sell more Ritlin
(sp Ridlin?) for the drug companies is not necessarily concern for either
accuracy or service.
>> If they get better,
>Then perhaps they were not seriously ill to begin with.
Perhaps perhaps-why this negativity? If someones Cancer is cured they don't
care how it happened.
>> what does it matter if you understood the process
>> correctly?
>Perhaps we would discover that the 'process' had nothing
>to do with the 'cure' and that people did not need to
>waste their time and money on such questionable practices
>or on the con artists who offer them.
Employ occams razor to remediation. This is pure dreaming. What works for one
may not work for another no matter WHAT it is. We waste billions on headache
medicines that NEVER address the cause and ONLY deals with effects-is this a
con?
You are arguing the oldest argument in this group-astrology works, I can see
it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet). Life works when
you let it, and judging every event by some yardstick "should" is what
produces stories such as scrooge.
A word to the wise is sufficient.
--
"The irrational fullness of life taught me never to discard anything, even when
it goes against all our theories . . . It is of course disquieting, and one is
not certain whether the compass is pointing true or not; but security,
certitude, and peace do not lead to discoveries. "
-C. G. JUNG
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Marsha
LazzWaldo wrote:
...
> No, she hasn't! She evades, dissembles, and runs away everytime she's
> cornered! She doesn't even have the balls...
I was born that way and do just fine without any. Were you born like
that too?
What's your real name LazzWaldo? Just your first name will do. Will
you answer the question? Or will you evade it and dissemble by ignoring
it like you have the posts where I answered you?
Marsha
Al Simak
LazzWaldo wrote:
>
> Ed Wollmann wrote:
>
> >Oh here we go with the logical fallacies and ad hominem abusive attacks
> because
> >you are devoid of logic.
>
> Then you yourself have proven yourself to be totally devoid of logic, because
> you've posted far more logical fallaciesa and ad homineim attacks thatn ANYONE
> here!
> >Marsha has calmly and logically defeated your
> >hyperbole so often you should be ashamed old man.
> look even more foolish!
Rather than just stating these things, could you please cite examples?
> By the way Ed, You've been caught LYING! And you lost 2 accounts, so you are a
> LIAR and a LOSER!
Again, reference?
Dr. John Tlon
John Teggatz
In article <19971101163...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann) wrote:
Oh here we go with the same old wollman dosey-doe. Astrology is one big
barn dance, and Ed - the cowchip in the corner - provides the same old
tune:
>Oh here we go with the logical fallacies and ad hominem abusive attacks because
> you are devoid of logic. Marsha has calmly and logically defeated your
> hyperbole so often you should be ashamed old man.
Paul Rumelhart
Rimblesah wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
>
>> >I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works??
>>
>> It doesn't work. You cannot cite any serious research which shows that
>> memories induced by "past life regression" are real memories.
>
>I think you're missing the point, Tom. The prevailing attitude in
>research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude in
>clinical psych is, "whatever works".
>
>If they get better, what does it matter if you understood the process
>correctly?
Because if you don't, you don't know if it will work on the next guy or
cause them harm. Or that it will continue to work on the person who got
better but has relapsed again.
Paul Rumelhart
Rimblesah
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, J. Karlin wrote:
> Rimblesah wrote:
>
> > I think you're missing the point, Tom. The prevailing attitude in
> > research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude in
> > clinical psych is, "whatever works".
>
> 'works' in what way?
Judging by the post you've made, it is a good thing you are asking this
question--you obviously don't know. It is a pity you were asking it
rhetorically.
> If the notion is to lie to the patient
> in order to make them feel better then I think there is
> a fundamental ethical problem with the 'therapy' and the
> 'therapists' using it.
If this were the case, then I would indeed agree wholeheartedly.
By what dint of experience or education do you presume that clinical
practicioners all lie to their patients? It's really peculiar... I heard
a very well thought out discussion on why it is so critical for the
therapist to *never* lie to the patient, even if in the short term it
would do damage.
> In other words, an effective fraud SHOULD be able to
> make his victim feel better, just long enough to get
> his money, and then remind him to come back for more
> 'treatment' should he suffer a relapse.
You obviously do not understand the scientific principles that clinicians
use in their treatment.
> All you are suggesting here is that 'clinical psychologists'
> are morally and professionally no better than the people
> who man the phones in the psychic sweatshops.
No, that is what you say. Please pay better attention in the future to
the difference.
> I believe
> that is ALSO the argument made by the companies that
> run those particular swindles.
>
> > If they get better,
>
> Then perhaps they were not seriously ill to begin with.
A distinct possibility. But it is not always the case. Point in fact, a
research project was conducted to discover exactly how much good therapy
did. A working definition for "mentally ill" was created and "better"
was defined by no longer fitting the definition. This evaluative
standard was given to a great many people, and persons with mental
illness were earmarked.
Those who ended up going to therapy got "better" about two times in
three. Those who didn't go to therapy got "better" about one time in
three.
This can be looked at in two ways, and I think both are valid pov's. The
first is that you can go to therapy, shell out big bucks, and have a
recovery probability that is only slightly better than 50/50.
The second is that you are twice as likely to recover if you go to
therapy.
Either way, it is not a very heartening picture. But I think you are too
stuck on your own opinion to see the x2 effect that therapy has.
Clinical work has a lot of room for error. But it isn't useless.
> > what does it matter if you understood the process
> > correctly?
>
> Perhaps we would discover that the 'process' had nothing
> to do with the 'cure'
You need to be introduced to the wonders of empirical research.
Another study was done, one that found that the single greatest
determinant for successful therapy was the amount of genuine care that
the patient perceived his/her therapist to have in them and their
problems.
Not technique used or length of therapy or seriousness of problems or
intelligence of therapist. Amount of care the patient perceived in the
shrink.
Given this, a past life therapist has a pretty good chance of helping a
client, if they show genuine caring. This is why "how" is not as
important as whether or not they in fact get better. It's lousy science,
it's excellent clinical practice.
Whatever's best for the client. Not whatever makes the most sense to the
therapist, or what is best understood by science.
> and that people did not need to
> waste their time and money on such questionable practices
> or on the con artists who offer them.
My, what an intellectual opinion you've expressed.
If you haven't studied psych enough to even know these basic facts, much
less enough to know how to evaluate good research methods from poor ones,
then you really don't have enough intelligence in the topic to be
blathering your two cents all over the place. Just MHO.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Zak & Kim Gass
I'm supposed to be resting quietly near death's door looking wan, but I
looked in here yesterday and saw this thread, and I had to jump right in
because I think maybe I started it. I have not read everything that has
been said because I just don't have time right now.
Past life regression is an interesting remnant from the late 70's. It
is useful in the way that dream therapy is. I see these fantasies as
complex, telling dreams. Regression therapy on the other hand, is
something that should never be practised. No responsible therapist has
any business planting an idea like that in a patient's mind. I don't
even think you should bring it up because they are so suggestible.
If you want to use an exercise like this, I would use it as an open
ended imaginary exercise (that may or may not inlude hypnosis) much
like the way free association is used now. Under no circumstances may
the therapist suggest that these experiences are literally true. (The
only opinion a therapist may express, is that if a patient comes in and
tells you they remember something is to try and keep an open mind.)
But the part that really bothers me is that I thought that one of the
main goals of therapy were to help the patient understand and learn to
deal with the issues that affect him. You don't get that by blaming all
the problems on a past life. You don't get to yell abracadabra all your
problems are gone now that we know you were really a french peasant who
starved to death. These are merely fantasies meant to be analyzed as
dreams are.
And as for this recovered memory bullshit. Those people should be
boiled in oil (after you skin them alive). I cannot reconcile myself to
the idea that any school would graduate those idiots without discussing
issues like this. How could a psychologist not know that this is an
unexpressed wish for closeness, or love? How could they not know that
this happens when a parent is unable to express love for a child, and
that for these families you've just manifested their worst nightmare?
Well, that's all I had to say.
kim
(the one who can spell)
Phil Harrison
In article <345FA...@ebs.net>, Zak & Kim Gass <ga...@ebs.net> writes
>But it might not have been clear from my rant, which was about
practical
>application of these (memories?), I believe some of them are memories,
>and some of them are real (ly true). They are all real.
>
>It's just that most (but not all) are really made up.
>
>kim
Hi,
I was very interested in your attitude to past life memories, especially
your assertion that some (but not all) are made up. I assume that when
you use the phrase "made up", you do not necessarily mean that they are
deliberately made up, but could be the result of a subconscious desire
of the subject to please the therapist.
I would like to ask how you would distinguish between memories that are
made up, and ones that are the result of an actual past life. I
personally believe that there is little evidence to show that any of
these past life memories can be proven to be genuine. I would be very
interested in any evidence that you would consider to be compelling.
--
Phil Harrison
SKEP-TI-CULT(R) Member #64-53649-969
alt.fan.bruce-kettler FAQ:
http://www.ramtop.demon.co.uk/afbkfaq/
Vessekx
Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
> Rimblesah wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> >
> >> >I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works??
> >>
> >> It doesn't work. You cannot cite any serious research which shows that
> >> memories induced by "past life regression" are real memories.
> >
> >research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude in
> >clinical psych is, "whatever works".
> >
> >correctly?
>
> cause them harm. Or that it will continue to work on the person who got
> better but has relapsed again.
>
> Paul Rumelhart
You can say the same thing about anti-biotics. They may not continue to
work in the case of a relapse. And they may not work for the next guy.
Does that mean they shouldn't be used?
- Theo
root
Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> In article <63nvjt$m9m$1...@la-mail4.digilink.net>, pa...@pmcg.com wrote:
> >In article <345f49f2...@news.teleport.com>
> >d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) wrote:
> >>
> >> The harm is that the individual is not actually dealing with real
> >> issues. Instead, they are escaping into fantasies.
> >
> > You ought to get your opinions in order, duo. Let me quote
> >you from Carl Sagan's last book:
>
> <yammering snipped>
>
> >I'm not arguing in support of regression therapy, by any means, but your
> >uncritical denials are nothing more than your own blind faith.
>
> You're not arguing anything, paul@, you're chattering. This is not a
> discussion of ESP. It is a discussion of a form of "therapy" that is based on
> a credulous assumption that fantasies induced by hypnosis are real memories.
>
Thanks to tv shows like Sightings people have come to view
these things as all one topic and if some of it's true than it all must
be true - a sorry state of affairs
--
l...@loop.com
root
Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> One of the literature searches I did in grad school addressed the issue of how
> a therapist decides whether a patient is getting "better". It turns out that
> there is a strong correlation between a "getting better" evaluation and the
> increasing congruence of the patient's belief and value systems with those of
> the therapist.
>
> People tend to see those who agree with them as mentally healthy and those who
> don't as diseased, stunted, or malformed. This is also true of therapists,
> all too often. It's really important to define your terms.
Does this vary with the problems and therapies involved ?
--
l...@loop.com
Tom Schuler
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.971104...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>
>Those who ended up going to therapy got "better" about two times in
>three. Those who didn't go to therapy got "better" about one time in
>three.
One of the literature searches I did in grad school addressed the issue of how
Edmond Wollmann
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Ed Wollman wrote:
> >astrology works, I can see
> >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
I can measure it, but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
standard acceptable to the scientific community.
But then, they thought corn flakes "cured" masturbation too.
--
"It is the bulwark of virginity." Queen Elizibeth on Masturbation, from
Mark Twain on masturbation, Paris 1879.
Raven (J. Singleton)
Phil Harrison (phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk) wrote:
| I was very interested in your attitude to past life memories, especially
| your assertion that some (but not all) are made up. I assume that when
| you use the phrase "made up", you do not necessarily mean that they are
| deliberately made up, but could be the result of a subconscious desire
| of the subject to please the therapist.
Actually, there's a high correlation of the nature of "recovered memories"
to the expectations of the therapist, such that some therapists get UFO
abduction memories from their patients, others get past-life memories, and
others get satanic-ritual-abuse memories. I'm not sure that the "desire of
the *subject* to please the therapist" is the relevant factor here, though
certainly it would facilitate cooperation. Keep in mind that American POWs in
Korea had minimal desire to please their captors, yet the brainwashing method
was effective on many of them.
| I would like to ask how you would distinguish between memories that are
| made up, and ones that are the result of an actual past life. I
| personally believe that there is little evidence to show that any of
| these past life memories can be proven to be genuine. I would be very
| interested in any evidence that you would consider to be compelling.
Phil, what I've read deals more with the ability to create pseudomemories,
or as the newer popular usage has it, false memories. Roy Udolf's HANDBOOK
OF HYPNOTISM FOR PROFESSIONALS, and FORENSIC HYPNOSIS, discuss this from the
viewpoint of the ethical professional who *knows* (and whose patient *knows*,
and *consents*) that suggestive techniques with this potential are being used.
There are other books that deal with the use of such techniques on people
who do not know about, or do not consent to, such techniques. For example:
Robert Jay Lifton, THOUGHT REFORM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TOTALISM (1961).
Steven Hassan, COMBATTING CULT MIND CONTROL (1988).
Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, SNAPPING (second edition, 1995).
Margaret Thaler Singer, CULTS IN OUR MIDST (1995).
In the last-mentioned book, Singer makes the point that some of these cults
masquerade as psychotherapy, rewriting the patient's past to *increase* the
patient's long-term dependency on "therapist" and "support group". This type
of brainwashing has led to a spreading problem now being recognized under the
name of "False Memory Syndrome". Here are other books dealing with the topic:
Martin A. Conway, ed.,
RECOVERED MEMORIES AND FALSE MEMORIES
(1997, Oxford University Press)
Eleanor C. Goldstein and Kevin Farmer,
CONFABULATIONS: Creating False Memories, Destroying Families
(1992, SirS);
TRUE STORIES OF FALSE MEMORIES
(1993, SirS)
Elizabeth F. Loftus and Katherine Ketcham,
THE MYTH OF REPRESSED MEMORY: False Memories and Allegations of
Sexual Abuse (1994, St. Martin's Press)
Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters,
MAKING MONSTERS: False Memory, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria
(1994, Charles Scribner's)
Mark Pendergrast,
VICTIMS OF MEMORY: Incest Accusations and Shattered Lives
(1995, Upper Access Books)
Kathy Pezdek and William P. Banks, eds.,
THE RECOVERED MEMORY / FALSE MEMORY DEBATE
(1996, Academic Press)
Charlotte Prozan, ed.,
CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY: Dilemmas of Childhood
Sexual Abuse (1997, Jason Aronson)
William Rogers,
"RECOVERED MEMORY" AND OTHER ASSAULTS UPON THE MYSTERIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
Hypnosis, Psychotherapy, Fraud, and the Mass Media
(1995, McFarland)
Susan Smith,
SURVIVOR PSYCHOLOGY: The Dark Side of a Mental Health Mission
(1995, Upton Books)
Nicholas P. Spanos,
MULTIPLE IDENTITIES & FALSE MEMORIES: A Sociocognitive Perspective
(1996, American Psychological Association)
Reinder Van Til,
LOST DAUGHTERS: Recovered Memory Therapy and the People It Hurts
(1997, William B. Eeerdmans)
Elizabeth A. Waites,
MEMORY QUEST: Trauma and the Search for Personal History
(1997, W.W. Norton)
Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager,
RETURN OF THE FURIES: An Investigation into Recovered Memory Therapy
(1994, Open Court)
Claudette Wassil-Grimm,
DIAGNOSIS FOR DISASTER: The Devastating Truth About False Memory Syndrome
and Its Impact on Accusers and Families (1995, Overlook Press)
Lawrence Wright,
REMEMBERING SATAN
(1994, Knopf)
Michael D. Yapko,
SUGGESTIONS OF ABUSE: True and False Memories of Childhood Sexual Trauma
(1994, Simon & Schuster)
-- Raven | "He who does not bellow the truth when he
| knows the truth makes himself the accomplice
raven @ solaria.sol.net | of liars and forgers." Charles Peguy,
| _Lettre du Provincial_, 21 Decembre 1899
pa...@pmcg.com
In article <63otvq$o79$2...@news1.teleport.com>
d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) wrote:
>
>>I'm not arguing in support of regression therapy, by any means, but your
>>uncritical denials are nothing more than your own blind faith.
>
> You're not arguing anything, paul@, you're chattering. This is not a
> discussion of ESP. It is a discussion of a form of "therapy" that is based on
> a credulous assumption that fantasies induced by hypnosis are real memories.
>
> Now, stick to the subject or shut up.
I choose C, non of the above.
In typical fashion, duo, you find yourself in an untenable position,
so rather than address the issue, you resort to bluster and bombast. Your
self-styled 'scientific' approach is incongruent with the current state of the
real scientific debate. I mereley pointed it out and offered a way for you to get
it right. I know you're not interested in getting it right, but I enjoy tilting a
windmills. :)
joshua geller
pa...@pmcg.com writes:
> I choose C, non of the above.
> In typical fashion, duo, you find yourself in an untenable position,
> so rather than address the issue, you resort to bluster and bombast. Your
> self-styled 'scientific' approach is incongruent with the current
> state of the real scientific debate. I mereley pointed it out and
> offered a way for you to get it right. I know you're not interested
> in getting it right, but I enjoy tilting a windmills. :)
words.
josh
Zak & Kim Gass
Dear Raven,
I read your post. These look like good books. I'm not going to read
them though because I already agree. What I don't understand is why
this isn't a required subject in schools for therapists.
kim
LazzWaldo
Ed Wollman wrote:
>> >astrology works, I can see
> > >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
>> If it can't be measured, then you cannot say with certainty that it works.
>I can measure it,
Oh, *you* can measure it! You just stated "it cannot be measured (as of yet)"
NOW you say only *YOU* can measure it? That's quite a contradiction! Just like
your "It doesn't bother me/I'll sue your ASS!" or "I don't want followers/I
have lab assistants who worship the ground I walk on" contradictions.
Ed. It's real simple. You're a liar. Nothing you say is credible. Badda-bing,
badda-boom.
>but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
>standard acceptable to the scientific community.
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. Astrology has been around what, thousands of years, just
like most superstitions? Science has marched on, Eddie. We have the technology
to measure the most infinitesimal of things (although, no instrument that
could measure your integrity and credibility has been yet built that could
even get a blip on the screen).
Astrology can't be measured, Ed, because there's NOTHING TO IT.
>But then, they thought corn flakes "cured" masturbation too.
And you proved them wrong, dincha?! 5 bowls of cornflakes, and then it's
floggin' the bishop the rest of the day for Eddie! Cornflakes for lunch, and
then it's back to poundin' the pud! Cornflakes au gratin for supper, and then
it's time to work the weasel!
Ed Wollman's Alternative Reality Workoout!
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> LazzWaldo wrote:
> > Ed Wollman wrote:
> > >astrology works, I can see
> > >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
> > If it can't be measured, then you cannot say with certainty that it works.
> I can measure it, but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
> standard acceptable to the scientific community.
I am glad to see you finally agree to this point. The "measuring" you do
can easily be chock full of self-deception and you wouldn't know,
because it doesn't employ scientific controls.
> But then, they thought corn flakes "cured" masturbation too.
"They" apparently consists of Will Keith Kellogg, who was a cereal
manufacturer, philanthropist, and puritannical bible-thumper, but no
scientist. I'm sure that he "measured" the libido-cooling effect of corn
flakes in much the same manner as you "measure" the workings of
astrology.
> --
> "It is the bulwark of virginity." Queen Elizibeth on Masturbation, from
> Mark Twain on masturbation, Paris 1879.
Is one of your sock puppets named "Rosy," by any chance?
Jim
Nona and Kari
Is Reincarnation a part of some Religious doctrine? Yes.
Does this mean it is only practiced within religious circles? No
Are there actual cases where the people described under hypnosis have
been found to have actually existed and died as remembered? Yes
Do these people come out and reveal themselves? Not often because of
those who are so sure it is not true.
Is there good reason to be careful around those who don't care to
believe and don't want anyone else to hear about it ever? Yes, without a
doubt!
Am I trying to anger or flame anyone?? NO, never, I usually take
each person as they come, with caution, and hope for the best.
Am I responsible if someone else defines himself as something I have
described without my making any personal identifications? No, never, I
don't claim to have the power to control anyone. Nor do I ever judge others
personally. I simply refuse to put myself into the position of harm from a
so called skeptic ever again.
Kari
Jim Rogers
Well for starters, no particular schooling is required for "therapists."
Jim
Nona and Kari
Excuse me. To assume that the therapist tells the person under hypnosis
what to remember has anything to do with what I was speaking about is
absurd. Not all psychologists who use hypnosis does anything but ask
questions. The only directing of any kind is during the very beginning in
which one begins the descent into relaxation. No mention of what year to
see, or what country, or anything. all questions are usually about what the
patient sees, nothing more. Whatever the experience, Where ever the
memories come from, if the person undergoing this therapy faces their fears
whilst undergoing it, then the accomplishment is real. Fantasies would be
worthless as only the patient would have the real knowledge of the fear.
Only the patient can determine if it works. How one lives their life is
truly the final answer to this question. being happy is a lot better than
knowing everyone there is to know before trying to find happiness. Be
cautious always, but also be open-minded and try to work things out.
Kari
root wrote in message <345FB8E7...@loop.com>...
>Tom Schuler wrote:
>>
>> In article <63nvjt$m9m$1...@la-mail4.digilink.net>, pa...@pmcg.com wrote:
>> >In article <345f49f2...@news.teleport.com>
>> >d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The harm is that the individual is not actually dealing with real
>> >> issues. Instead, they are escaping into fantasies.
>> >
>> > You ought to get your opinions in order, duo. Let me quote
>> >you from Carl Sagan's last book:
>>
>> <yammering snipped>
>>
>> >I'm not arguing in support of regression therapy, by any means, but your
>> >uncritical denials are nothing more than your own blind faith.
>>
>> You're not arguing anything, paul@, you're chattering. This is not a
>> discussion of ESP. It is a discussion of a form of "therapy" that is
based on
>> a credulous assumption that fantasies induced by hypnosis are real
memories.
>>
Al Simak
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > LazzWaldo wrote:
> > > Ed Wollman wrote:
> > > >astrology works, I can see
> > > >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
> > > If it can't be measured, then you cannot say with certainty that it works.
> > I can measure it, but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
> > standard acceptable to the scientific community.
> I am glad to see you finally agree to this point. The "measuring" you do
> can easily be chock full of self-deception and you wouldn't know,
> because it doesn't employ scientific controls.
Why is this? Do you need science to tell you your heart is beating? Or
does it just confirm what you already know?
--
The Lofty One
Al Simak
Al Simak
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Bullshit. Leading questions and suggestions can happen throughout the session.
Do you have proof for these accusations?
root
Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> In article <345FA8E1...@loop.com>, root <l...@loop.com> wrote:
>
> >> It isn't therapy. It's religion.
> >
> >The problem is how on earth make it a science.
>
> One doesn't make a belief into a science, I think. The best you can do is
> examine your beliefs carefully and compare them to other proposed versions of
> reality and then be prepared to abandon your beliefs when they fail to have
> the consistent predictive power that others do.
my point was that there's rarely if ever any way to
corroborate these "memories"
> >Fantasizing about the past is certainly not therapy
> >but there has been some real work done in this area
> >and cases of people gaining relief from certain conditions.
> >Check out Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery.
>
> I will. It sounds like anecdotal evidence, though.
mostly
>Stories and single cases
> don't make for good science.
as I said
the interesting thing in this book is the therepists who
did not beleive or suggest this stuff but ended up at least
considering it
> >( Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure we couldn't all
> > have been Mark Antony )
>
> I can think of world-views in which we all *are* Mark Antony.
whose?
root
root wrote:
>Tom Schuler wrote:
>> I can think of world-views in which we all *are* Mark Antony.
> whose ?
uh make that: who's ?
LazzWaldo
Nona and kari wrote:
>Are there actual cases where the people described under hypnosis have
>been found to have actually existed and died as remembered? Yes
Gee, whiz. Hypnotize me and ask me about JFK. I'll be that you'll find that he
actually existed and died as remembred.
Put serious controlled research on past life regressions, and you'll find a
load of hooey......
>I simply refuse to put myself into the position of harm from a
>so called skeptic ever again.
How do you get the sand out of your nose when you stick your head in that hole?
LazzWaldo
NonaKari wrote:
>To assume that the therapist tells the person under hypnosis
>what to remember has anything to do with what I was speaking about is
>absurd. Not all psychologists who use hypnosis does anything but ask
>questions.
Baloney. Vas ya dere, Charley?
>The only directing of any kind is during the very beginning in
>which one begins the descent into relaxation.
Bullshit. Leading questions and suggestions can happen throughout the session.
Tom Schuler
>> It isn't therapy. It's religion.
>
>The problem is how on earth make it a science.
One doesn't make a belief into a science, I think. The best you can do is
examine your beliefs carefully and compare them to other proposed versions of
reality and then be prepared to abandon your beliefs when they fail to have
the consistent predictive power that others do.
>Fantasizing about the past is certainly not therapy
>but there has been some real work done in this area
>and cases of people gaining relief from certain conditions.
>Check out Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery.
I will. It sounds like anecdotal evidence, though. Stories and single cases
don't make for good science.
>( Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure we couldn't all
> have been Mark Antony )
I can think of world-views in which we all *are* Mark Antony.
LazzWaldo
Al Simak, a little touchy, wrote:
>LazzWaldo wrote:
>> Bullshit. Leading questions and suggestions can happen throughout the
session.
>Do you have proof for these accusations?
Er, Al, "can happen" is not an accusation. I'm a little leery about discussing
this with you, as you clearly aren't starting out in a very logical manner.
Still, I'll humor you. Yes. I have proof. I have videotapes of therapy sessions
wherein leading questions and suggestions were used. I have books and studies
that document exactly this type of thing.
But somehow, I get this feeling, that though you accept astrology with far more
tenuous "proof" of its' workings, you'll dismiss my evidence as not strong
enough "proof"
And notice I didn't say "in every case", in case you decide to go off on THAT
rant. Sheesh!
LazzWaldo
root rote:
>> whose ?
>uh make that: who's ?
Uh, don't. "Who's?" is a contraction of "who is?"
"Whose" pertains to possesiveness.
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> Rimblesah wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> >> >I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works??
> >> It doesn't work. You cannot cite any serious research which shows that
> >> memories induced by "past life regression" are real memories.
> >I think you're missing the point, Tom. The prevailing attitude in
> >research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude in
> >clinical psych is, "whatever works".
> >If they get better, what does it matter if you understood the process
> >correctly?
> Because if you don't, you don't know if it will work on the next guy or
> cause them harm. Or that it will continue to work on the person who got
> better but has relapsed again.
You don't understand human nature, people are individual and although
there are some generalizable treatments for some things that work
sometimes, people need different therapies and different remediation the
same way they have different ideas, careers, preferences etc. You are
stuck on believing that science is how people become cured psychically.
There are physiological treatements and there are psychic treatments and
one is NOT "better" than the other. They are used where appropriate.
Here is the non-cynical TRUE current view of academia on the subject;
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
Now, knowing you cynics you will cut your own throat and prove your
disingenuousness and lack of real knowledge in science by claiming some
falsity to the above.
--
"Forgive me my nonsense as I also forgive the nonsense of those who
think they talk sense." Robert Frost
Tom Schuler
In article <63ri64$q...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Nona and Kari" <nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Excuse me. To assume that the therapist tells the person under hypnosis
>what to remember has anything to do with what I was speaking about is
>absurd.
Research shows otherwise. Sorry to burst the bubble.
>Not all psychologists who use hypnosis does anything but ask
>questions. The only directing of any kind is during the very beginning in
>which one begins the descent into relaxation. No mention of what year to
>see, or what country, or anything. all questions are usually about what the
>patient sees, nothing more.
You apparently know very little about counseling. The questions one asks and
the attention given to particular parts of the response are strong hints as to
what answers you expect. To call it "past life therapy" itself sets up some
very obvious expectations.
Luis Campos Ribeiro
Hi
I am searching for a good book or text on the use of decanates in
ocidental astrology, can anyone help?
Thanks
Luis Ribeiro
Tom Schuler
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 18:01:46 -0800, root <l...@loop.com> wrote:
>my point was that there's rarely if ever any way to
>corroborate these "memories"
In any particular case, I agree. However, the use of hypnosis in many
situations in which recall of past experiences is testable shows quite
clearly that hypnosis does not in any way make real memories more
vivid and detailed. Instead, it tends to produce fantasies which are
thereafter indistinguishable from real memories.
We can reasonably expect this same effect in "past life therapy".
There is no reason to believe that hypnosis produces false memories in
all other situations but not in this one.
>> I can think of world-views in which we all *are* Mark Antony.
>whose?
It's not so much a matter of who as a matter of what. Once you let go
of the sense that ego rigidly defines something objectively real, then
the whole notion that there is a linear progression of ego through
different bodies becomes absurd. Once the ego dissolves, there is no
difference between any one thing and any other. Thus there is no
difference between any person and Mark Antony. It's merely a matter
of where and how you choose to create the boundaries of your ego.
If you want to claim you are Mark Antony, it doesn't preclude anyone
else making the same claim.
Rimblesah
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> Rimblesah wrote:
> >If they get better, what does it matter if you understood the process
> >correctly?
>
> Because if you don't, you don't know if it will work on the next guy or
> cause them harm.
You *never* know this. You just convince yourself that your
understanding of the process protects them.
> Or that it will continue to work on the person who got
> better but has relapsed again.
You *never* know this either.
It is folly to assume that you know what's going on in your client's head.
It is an even bigger folly to assume you definitely know this simply
because you have a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical
underpinnings of your technique.
If you have a comprehensive understanding of a technique, and another
person has a comprehensive understanding of a technique, and you assume
yours is better simply because yours makes more sense to you, then you
have perhaps engaged in the greatest folly of all. Arrogance.
"Knowing" is believing our beliefs are correct.
All beliefs have the potential for inaccuracy.
Everything is based upon faith that our beliefs are useful.
Most of the time, we think they are useful because we kid ourselves into
thinking our beliefs are correct. IOW, we "know" we are right.
And so we come full circle.
The only way to break the circle is to stop kidding ourselves that our
beliefs are necessarily correct.
Everything else is self-delusion.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Rimblesah
Thoughts.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Rimblesah
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.971104...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> Rimblesah <d-w...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Those who ended up going to therapy got "better" about two times in
> >three. Those who didn't go to therapy got "better" about one time in
> >three.
>
> One of the literature searches I did in grad school
Curious: what program did you go to grad school for?
> addressed the issue of how
> a therapist decides whether a patient is getting "better". It turns out that
> there is a strong correlation between a "getting better" evaluation and the
> increasing congruence of the patient's belief and value systems with those of
> the therapist.
I don't doubt it. OTOH, the project I described used a more objective
criteria: the DSM-IV.
If you qualified for a diagnosis, you were used as a subject for the
research. I think the timeframe was six months... if after six months
you no longer qualified for a DSM-IV diagnosis then you were "better".
IIRC, the research was done blind (ie the surveyors didn't know if the
people were in the "therapy" or "no-therapy" group).
> People tend to see those who agree with them as mentally healthy and those who
> don't as diseased, stunted, or malformed. This is also true of therapists,
> all too often. It's really important to define your terms.
I think I said some objective criteria was laid out. I daresay most of
the people in this newsgroup don't even know what the DSM-IV is, let
alone care about the criteria used in the study. <shrug>
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
LazzWaldo
Kari wrote:
>I have the right to live my life in my own way..
So do heroin addicts.
So do cult members who are not even aware that they've been brainwashed.
LazzWaldo
Eddie wrote:
>Where's your birth data? Or are you a puppet?
To answer the last question first, no. You being the sock puppeteer
extraordinaire, you should be able to tell that.
To answer the first question; it's on my birth certificate.
Now, I've asked you before to try to guess my birth sign, judging by the way I
behave here, and what little you know.
It would be very impressive if you were able to put together an accurate
answer from the evidence available to you. Just like a forensic pathologist!
It's amazing how they can reconstruct a crime so accurately with little bits
of evidence!
To be able to do this, rather than go, after the fact "yeah, I thought this was
the case..." and then throw together a bunch of interpretations to fit the
facts, the way you usually do, would be astounding.
20-20 hindsight. Monday morning quarterbacking. Prove that astrology is more
than that.
And if you say "astrology doesn't work that way", then you're admitting how
useless it is.
So you tell me. What's my birth data?
Tom Schuler
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:20:18 -0600, Rimblesah
<d-w...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
>>
>> Then I suppose all those research journals in clinical psychology are
>> just for fun.
>
>No, they are there because there is no one "right" way to do things;
>ongoing research will continually broaden our understanding of how to go
>about discharging clinical services.
But there are many "wrong" ways to do therapy. Research also points
out those ineffective methods.
>Besides, you dodged the important part of what I typed above:
>
>If they get better, what does it matter?
I didn't dodge that. I said that you have to define your term. What
does "better" mean? Does it mean that you feel good for a while? I
pointed out that research shows that many psychotherapists describe
their patients as "getting better" as the patient's value system
approaches that of the therapist's.
So, are they "getting better" or are they only being indoctrinated?
>(Clinical psych is probably the most down to earth, pragmatic type of
>psychology out there.)
Actually, I think it is the least down to earth application of
psychology going.
>According to both my clinical psych text and my abnormal psych text, the
>relative effectiveness of differing therapeutic techniques is roughly
>equal. Empirical clinical psych research was quoted to support these
>assertions. Factors other than specific therapeutic technique play a
>greater role in eventual outcome, according to the research that was
>presented to us.
What your texts are comparing are apples and oranges, finding them
both to be fruit. Throw in a hand grenade and see what happens. Do
you think your psych professors are likely to think that the
Scientology practice of "clearing" would be considered equally
therapeutic as compared to object relations counseling?
>What constitutes "silly delusions" is highly subjective.
I'd call the belief that you can remember past lives through hypnotic
induction to be a silly delusion. The research on hypnosis clearly
shows that supposedly forgotten memories "retrieved" by hypnosis are
entirely unreliable. Beliefs based upon demonstrably untrue premises
are delusional.
>> That hokum gets accepted as psychotherapy is a huge embarassment to the
>> whole field.
>
>Actually, to be specific: that stuff outside of mainstream psychotherapy
>gets accepted occasionally is a huge embarassment to the mainstream
>section of the field.
I was quite specific. I said, and meant, hokum.
>> Look at the nonsense with that "recovered memories" fad. Several
>> psychotherapists have been sued successfully by the people whom they
>> seriously screwed up by pretending that "whatever works" was good enough.
>
>First off, it is deeply problematic to assume that the judicial system
>knows better about psychology than psychologists do. Judges know law,
>and given the sometimes outlandish rulings they make ("Man who breaks leg
>while slipping on a wet floor during an after-hours break-in sues company
>and is awarded $10,000,000 for pain and suffering!")... let's just say that
>this isn't a very good approach to proving what is right and what isn't.
Judges know negligence when they see it, whether it was perpetrated
byt a psychologist or not. However, it is pretty clear that you don't
know the law. Judges do not award $10M to anyone for pain and
suffering. Juries make those decisions, based on some fairly strict
guidelines written into the statutes. Nor are you even remotely
knowledgeable about the facts in those claims against therapists.
Talk about things you know instead of speculating on things you have
no information about.
I'd consider encouraging false public accusations that destroy a
family and the lives of loved ones to be a pretty reprehensible thing
to do to a person who came to you for help.
Your second point was only loosely connected to this discussion and
I'm ignoring it in the interests of staying on topic.
>Thirdly, the simple fact that there is no consensus about recovered
>memories *means* that there is research out there supporting the validity
>of the phenomenon.
Certainly there is research that supports the notion that forgotten or
repressed memories can surface. However, the use of hypnosis for
inducing the recovery is extremely questionable. To take that even
further into a claim that you can use hypnosis to recover not only
lost memories of this life but also that you can be induced to
remember factual events of previous lives is more than just
questionable. It is ridiculous. There is absolutely no serious
research that supports this conclusion.
>Now you can act as though the courts hold Truth about psychotherapy in
>the palm of their hands. And you can say that it doesn't matter if some
>people get benefit from a technique because that technique *can* be misused
>to hurt people. And you can even carry on as though only a fool would
>hold a position that you disagree with.
You have failed to define what "benefit" means in this context. And
your demonstrated ignorance of court proceedings indicate that you are
not competent to evaluate the efficacy of the legal system either.
>But these things are not going to sway my opinion.
I would only confuse you with facts, I suppose.
>In my opinion, that some people get benefit means that some people aught
>to be exposed to the technique. You match the technique to the person.
>End of story.
By that rationale, we should continue to treat syphilis with mercury
and dysentery with laxatives. Perish the thought that someone's
beliefs and "therapy" might be wrong.
Tom Schuler
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:02:39 -0600, Rimblesah
<d-w...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
>
>> One of the literature searches I did in grad school
>
>Curious: what program did you go to grad school for?
MS Counseling Psychology.
>I don't doubt it. OTOH, the project I described used a more objective
>criteria: the DSM-IV.
>
>If you qualified for a diagnosis, you were used as a subject for the
>research. I think the timeframe was six months... if after six months
>you no longer qualified for a DSM-IV diagnosis then you were "better".
>IIRC, the research was done blind (ie the surveyors didn't know if the
>people were in the "therapy" or "no-therapy" group).
Not too bad, as these things go. At least objective behavior was
measured, rather than subjective reports of "feeling better". The
problem with results in psychotherapy is that you need to look at the
individual over a long period of time to determine if the effect was
lasting or not.
Rimblesah
I *like* that. I *like* that a lot. :)
<Rimblesah starts to rethink his pov that psychology really should be
grounded in science....>
-R
WBN?
Jim Rogers
Hearts exist in objective reality and do not hide from science. We can,
very often, informally "see for ourselves" specific cases that fit
generalizations that science has also found, such as knowing that that
thumping in your chest is your heart, pumping blood, exchanging elements
and compounds throughout your body that keep you alive.
The problem enters when going in the other direction: starting from ad
hoc personal observations and drawing sweeping generalizations that
don't bear up under independent, unbiased scrutiny. That's why a pillar
of science is independent peer review: anyone with any reason to doubt a
finding is welcome to run the same test and check for themselves (or
construct a more discriminating test), to challenge any
suspicious-looking data, or to poke holes in the published analysis and
logical conclusions; they aren't just branded "cynics" and summarily
dismissed.
Jim
Edmond Wollmann
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Eddie wrote:
> >Where's your birth data? Or are you a puppet?
> To answer the last question first, no. You being the sock puppeteer
> extraordinaire, you should be able to tell that.
> To answer the first question; it's on my birth certificate.
Why don't you put it on the board?
> Now, I've asked you before to try to guess my birth sign, judging by the way I
> behave here, and what little you know.
This is irrelevent, illogical, has nothing to do with astrology, and is
only indicative of your ignorance of the subject.
What would guessing a person's sun sign prove?
--
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
Mile 23
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.971106...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Rimblesah <d-w...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> People tend to see those who agree with them as mentally healthy and those
>> who
>> don't as diseased, stunted, or malformed. This is also true of therapists,
>> all too often. It's really important to define your terms.
>
>I think I said some objective criteria was laid out. I daresay most of
>the people in this newsgroup don't even know what the DSM-IV is, let
>alone care about the criteria used in the study. <shrug>
>
>-Rimblesah
>Why be normal?
Once again, note that this thread was never cross-posted to
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated, which is a real newsgroup.
:-)
Jim Rogers
Al Simak wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > LazzWaldo wrote:
> > > > Ed Wollman wrote:
> > > > >astrology works, I can see
> > > > >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
> > > > If it can't be measured, then you cannot say with certainty that it works.
> > > I can measure it, but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
> > > standard acceptable to the scientific community.
> > I am glad to see you finally agree to this point. The "measuring" you do
> > can easily be chock full of self-deception and you wouldn't know,
> > because it doesn't employ scientific controls.
> Why is this? Do you need science to tell you your heart is beating? Or
> does it just confirm what you already know?
Beating hearts exist in objective reality and do not hide from science.
That's a good example of a finding in science that everyone can
informally verify, as is often the case.
The problem enters when going in the other direction: making some ad hoc
personal observations, and generalizing. This is what Ed is claiming,
above. Sometimes you may be right, but there's no way to know unless
your generalizations can be independently confirmed by anyone who doubts
you. Ed is apparently claiming that this concern can be ignored, that
his generalizations are still true, because they're his, and he's such
an accomplished astrologer who can weigh 5*10^58 factor combinations
with one arm tied behind his back. (That number, by the way, is some
10^41 times bigger than the number of seconds that the universe has
existed; it is perfectly reasonable to doubt that Ed's "measurement"
sample is statistically significant enough to draw generalizations that
extrapolate to such inordinate precision, even if he happened to use
scientific controls, which he states above that he doesn't.)
That's why peer review is such an important pillar in science: anyone
who doubts is welcome to question the provenance of suspicious data,
repeat the experiments (or devise more discriminating experiments), or
question the logic of the conclusions. It happens all the time, and
they're not simply branded "cynics" and summarily dismissed.
Jim
Rimblesah
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800, "Nona and Kari"
>
> > You are speaking in generalities. I am speaking about what I have
> >experienced and no one has ever TOLD ME what to see or believe. No one ever
> >stated a date, and time a place. I was only asked What do you see now????
>
> To sell hoodoo as psychotherapy is unethical and deceitful.
I'll tell you what I think is unethical.
To undermine progress achieved by another therapist.
Shut the fuck up, Tom. It is not for you to assert whether or not the
technique was valid. You are not responsible that patient's well-being.
You want to speak in generalities, that's fine. You are entitled to your
opinions. But it is grossly unprofessional and unethical to try to
convince a specific person who has been to therapy that the techniques used
didn't really help them. Quit being a control freak, and leave this
person to their own assessment of their outcome.
The only time this *might* not apply is if you can point to discrete and
obvious outcomes from the therapeutic process which are dysfunctional to
the patient's well-being.
This is not what you are doing.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Excuse the french, folks. I feel very, very strongly about this.
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <346189...@sdsu.com>...
>Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> Rimblesah wrote in message ...
>
>> >On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
>
>> >> >I suppose it goes back to the old adage, whatever works??
>
>> >> It doesn't work. You cannot cite any serious research which shows
that
>> >> memories induced by "past life regression" are real memories.
>
>> >I think you're missing the point, Tom. The prevailing attitude in
>> >research psych is, "what's really going on?". The prevailing attitude
in
>> >clinical psych is, "whatever works".
>
>> >If they get better, what does it matter if you understood the process
>> >correctly?
>
>> Because if you don't, you don't know if it will work on the next guy or
>> cause them harm. Or that it will continue to work on the person who got
>> better but has relapsed again.
>
>You don't understand human nature, people are individual and although
>there are some generalizable treatments for some things that work
>sometimes, people need different therapies and different remediation the
>same way they have different ideas, careers, preferences etc.
Ok, I'm with you so far, and it's a good point. Do psychologists just make
it up as they go along or do they choose from a list of possible methods?
If they are just trying things at random, then they have no idea if it will
work again. Even if they have a list of approaches that work sometimes on
some people that they will try until one works, they may still cause
significant harm. Wouldn't it be better to have an idea why treatment A
works for some people and not others?
>You are
>stuck on believing that science is how people become cured psychically.
>There are physiological treatements and there are psychic treatments and
>one is NOT "better" than the other. They are used where appropriate.
>
>Here is the non-cynical TRUE current view of academia on the subject;
Thank you academia, you old nut, for being brave enought to tell the TRUTH.
>
>"A final word about science"
>Bem P. Allen
>Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
>1994 Simon & Schuster
>
>"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
>it is good and other approaches are bad.
>It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
>science just is...
>Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
>better than others.
>Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
>appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
>in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
>failure to meet scientific criteria.
If "failure to meet scientific criteria" means that evidence exists which
contradicts them, then I disagree with this. If it means that the question
is still open, then I agree.
>There are good reasons to include
>theories that do not meet scientific criteria well.
Such as?
>In fact, strengths
>in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
>some more scientific theories.
More valuable in what way?
>Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
>abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
>science' point of view."
Merit in what way? Merit because it sounds fascinating? Or merit because
it is a good model for what's being studied? How would you know if it was
untestable?
>
>Now, knowing you cynics you will cut your own throat and prove your
>disingenuousness and lack of real knowledge in science by claiming some
>falsity to the above.
Forgive the red splatters on the wall, something seems to be wrong with my
carotid artery...
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Al Simak wrote:
> > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > LazzWaldo wrote:
> > > > > Ed Wollman wrote:
> > > > > >astrology works, I can see
> > > > > >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
> > > > > If it can't be measured, then you cannot say with certainty that it works.
> > > > I can measure it, but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
> > > > standard acceptable to the scientific community.
> > > I am glad to see you finally agree to this point. The "measuring" you do
> > > can easily be chock full of self-deception and you wouldn't know,
> > > because it doesn't employ scientific controls.
> > Why is this? Do you need science to tell you your heart is beating? Or
> > does it just confirm what you already know?
> Beating hearts exist in objective reality
So does astrology.
> and do not hide from science.
Neither does astrology. What is your experience with astrology and what
applications have you used to observe whether there is a connection or
not?
One cannot see something one does not look at.
--
"The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armor of a
righteous cause, is stronger than all of the hosts of error."
William Jennings Bryan, speech 1896
--
The Lofty One
Al Simak
alsimak
LazzWaldo wrote:
> *YOU* are the one ignorant of astrology if you can't use it to help find signs,
> houses, and aspects etc. by their identifying traits.
Why would I want to?
> >What would guessing a person's sun sign prove?
> It would go a long way toward proving that astrology isn't just a shitload of
> monday morning quarterbacking
Nope wouldn't prove anything. Did you figure out who alsimak is yet?
:-)))))))
Now where did you come up with those budweiser frogs?
Rimblesah
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:20:18 -0600, Rimblesah
> >On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> >>
> >> Then I suppose all those research journals in clinical psychology are
> >> just for fun.
> >
> >No, they are there because there is no one "right" way to do things;
> >ongoing research will continually broaden our understanding of how to go
> >about discharging clinical services.
>
> But there are many "wrong" ways to do therapy. Research also points
> out those ineffective methods.
Sure. I never said anything to the contrary. Good therapy consists of
things like forming a strong therapeutic alliance (tm), etc. etc. etc.
These things are not compatible with past life therapy. To be sure, I am
not an advocate of past life therapy. I am just more open minded about
it than you.
You don't have to agree with me.
> >Besides, you dodged the important part of what I typed above:
> >
> >If they get better, what does it matter?
>
> I didn't dodge that. I said that you have to define your term.
I'm pretty sure you didn't. I don't think I deleted anything from your
post.
> What
> does "better" mean? Does it mean that you feel good for a while? I
> pointed out that research shows that many psychotherapists describe
> their patients as "getting better" as the patient's value system
> approaches that of the therapist's.
Yeah yeah...
> So, are they "getting better" or are they only being indoctrinated?
So how do you define "better"?
I would define it as reduction or elimination of dysfunctional mental
processes. Dysfunctional mental processes are those which can be
reasonably assumed to cause a marked impairment of life satisfaction
or marked impairment of ability to function, which is not transitory and
is not a normal reaction to life events, and are not due to lifestyle
choices, religious beliefs, etc. etc. blah blah.
Look it up in the DSM-IV. It's not perfect either but it's the best
definition I've ever seen.
I've posted many a time about my preference for commonly accepted
conceptualizations rather than tightly adhered to, invariably flawed
definitions. But as you won't continue this discussion without them....
> >(Clinical psych is probably the most down to earth, pragmatic type of
> >psychology out there.)
>
> Actually, I think it is the least down to earth application of
> psychology going.
Oh yeah. "The multivariate analysis of the effects of benzodiapezene on
temporal lobe dependent cognitions in troglodytes" is much more down to
earth than, say, learning to distinguish between suicidal gestures and
suicidal attempts. Give me a break.
> >According to both my clinical psych text and my abnormal psych text, the
> >relative effectiveness of differing therapeutic techniques is roughly
> >equal. Empirical clinical psych research was quoted to support these
> >assertions. Factors other than specific therapeutic technique play a
> >greater role in eventual outcome, according to the research that was
> >presented to us.
>
> What your texts are comparing are apples and oranges, finding them
> both to be fruit. Throw in a hand grenade and see what happens.
If by "fruit" you mean that various techniques are found to be of equal
effectiveness, then you are right.
> Do
> you think your psych professors are likely to think that the
> Scientology practice of "clearing" would be considered equally
> therapeutic as compared to object relations counseling?
Some.
Point in fact, one example I was told was that, "If a patient insists
upon an exorcism and nothing 'clinical' you can do can help them, by all
means recommend that they get an exorcism [assuming the exorcism does not
involve something dangerous like significant bloodletting, etc].
"The worst case scenario, they are no better and come back to you for
help. Best case scenario, their symptoms dissipate and they return to
normal functioning."
Whatever works. The patient's well-being is what is important, not the
therapist's perception of the reality of the situation.
This is not to say that you suggest exorcism if the patient has not
brought it up. Stick with what you know except when there's reason to
believe an alternative method might prove fruitful.
Whatever's best for the client. Say it Tom... it's kinda like a mantra.
"Whatever's best for the client."
"Whatever's best for the client."
"Whatever's best for the client."
> >What constitutes "silly delusions" is highly subjective.
>
> I'd call the belief that you can remember past lives through hypnotic
> induction to be a silly delusion.
We know.
> The research on hypnosis clearly
> shows that supposedly forgotten memories "retrieved" by hypnosis are
> entirely unreliable. Beliefs based upon demonstrably untrue premises
> are delusional.
You keep thinking science is the only way to help people. It's a damn
good way, Tom. It ain't the only way. Sometimes it just plain doesn't
work.
I bet you'd refuse an herbal remedy, even after all the scientifically
validated techniques for eliminating a severe rash failed, wouldn't you?
> >> That hokum gets accepted as psychotherapy is a huge embarassment to the
> >> whole field.
> >
> >Actually, to be specific: that stuff outside of mainstream psychotherapy
> >gets accepted occasionally is a huge embarassment to the mainstream
> >section of the field.
>
> I was quite specific. I said, and meant, hokum.
Get past the hokum thing. It wasn't what I was talking about.
You're too locked into your usual ways of thinking. It limits you from
seeing important things outside your current views. Important things
like the fact that some people find relief from their clinical symptoms.
> >> Look at the nonsense with that "recovered memories" fad. Several
> >> psychotherapists have been sued successfully by the people whom they
> >> seriously screwed up by pretending that "whatever works" was good enough.
> >
> >First off, it is deeply problematic to assume that the judicial system
> >knows better about psychology than psychologists do. Judges know law,
> >and given the sometimes outlandish rulings they make ("Man who breaks leg
> >while slipping on a wet floor during an after-hours break-in sues company
> >and is awarded $10,000,000 for pain and suffering!")... let's just say that
> >this isn't a very good approach to proving what is right and what isn't.
>
> Judges know negligence when they see it, whether it was perpetrated
> byt a psychologist or not.
You have a great deal of faith in the ability of flawed human beings who
have no education in psychology to pass judgement on emminently
psychological issues.
What was your stance on putting faith in things that are not warranted by
logic and research again?
> However, it is pretty clear that you don't know the law.
Well, I am studying psychology, not law. For all that, my minor was
sociology, and within my minor I specialized in criminology. I have had
a few courses upon legalistic functioning. What education have you had?
> Judges do not award $10M to anyone for pain and suffering.
I know that. I typed an arbitrary figure in there *because it had
nothing to do with the point I was making*.
> Juries make those decisions,
Not always. It varies from state to state what the criteria is for a
jury trial versus a trial decided upon by the bench. The de facto
procedure is to select a jury, though, because a judge is familiar with
the tricks lawyers use whereas the average person is not, and the lawyers
want to be able to rely upon their tricks. Point in fact, potential
jurors are dismissed if it is found out that they are or were a member of
the legal profession.
> based on some fairly strict guidelines written into the statutes.
The prosecutor decides upon the exact charges to bring about; sometimes
there is a choice and sometimes the crime only fits the criteria for one
charge. The statute then defines the minimum and maximum. This is not
what *I* would call strict....
That's for a criminal trial. In a civil suit things are run differently,
yes.
> Nor are you even remotely
> knowledgeable about the facts in those claims against therapists.
How the hell do you know what I am and am not familiar with? Arrogance,
Tom. It's showing....
> Talk about things you know instead of speculating on things you have
> no information about.
So, what is your legal background?
(Besides, none of this has anything to do with the idea that a court of
law has any special wisdom for ascertaining valid or invalid
psychological techniques.)
> I'd consider encouraging false public accusations that destroy a
> family and the lives of loved ones to be a pretty reprehensible thing
> to do to a person who came to you for help.
And what if those loved ones did indeed commit the alleged atrocities? I
think it would be a crime to convince the person that the memories were
in fact false, if they were true.
Which brings up the real bottom line, which isn't about law: how is the
therapist to know, for sure, what the truth or the falsehood is behind
those memories?
Anything you can come up with only suggests a technique which is not
foolproof. IOW, it is a matter of opinion. An educated opinion, sure.
But an opinion nevertheless.
> Your second point was only loosely connected to this discussion and
> I'm ignoring it in the interests of staying on topic.
I see. You say that a technique can be misused and therefore is
invalid. I'm saying that's flawed logic. You dismiss my argument. Okay.
Martial arts can be misused. Therefore they are not a valid form of self
defense. Whatever.
Flawed logic isn't relevant. I'll remember that.
> >Thirdly, the simple fact that there is no consensus about recovered
> >memories *means* that there is research out there supporting the validity
> >of the phenomenon.
>
> Certainly there is research that supports the notion that forgotten or
> repressed memories can surface. However, the use of hypnosis for
> inducing the recovery is extremely questionable. To take that even
> further into a claim that you can use hypnosis to recover not only
> lost memories of this life but also that you can be induced to
> remember factual events of previous lives is more than just
> questionable. It is ridiculous. There is absolutely no serious
> research that supports this conclusion.
Two hundred years ago there was no serious research that supported the
existance of atoms.
Perhaps we don't have a comprehensive enough understanding yet to explore
the validity. Perhaps it is not explorable *by* science.
If you do not understand the limits of your knowledge, you will be bound
to make errors about what is and what is not.
In the mean time, the fact remains: people benefit from the technique.
Nothing you say can deny this simple fact, and nothing you can say can
undermine this fact's importance.
> >Now you can act as though the courts hold Truth about psychotherapy in
> >the palm of their hands. And you can say that it doesn't matter if some
> >people get benefit from a technique because that technique *can* be misused
> >to hurt people. And you can even carry on as though only a fool would
> >hold a position that you disagree with.
>
> You have failed to define what "benefit" means in this context.
If you are not familiar enough with clinical psych to understand what it
means to say, "a client benefitted from the technique" then you don't
know enough to pass judgement.
If you are familiar with the use of that term in this context, why are
you demanding definitions?
Definitions arguments are word games, nothing more.
> And
> your demonstrated ignorance of court proceedings indicate that you are
> not competent to evaluate the efficacy of the legal system either.
Yeah yeah. Whatever.
> >But these things are not going to sway my opinion.
>
> I would only confuse you with facts, I suppose.
Ooh! The wit!
All your facts pale under the light of the fact that people benefit from
the technique. Would you *really* deny these people their recoveries, Tom?
> >In my opinion, that some people get benefit means that some people aught
> >to be exposed to the technique. You match the technique to the person.
> >End of story.
>
> By that rationale, we should continue to treat syphilis with mercury
> and dysentery with laxatives.
The one thing in all your rants that you have failed to prove is that
people find better benefit from some techniques than others.
Because you have failed to provide proof of this, all your arguments are
as insubstantial as tumbleweeds.
Because you have failed to provide this, your last analogy is flawed in
the one way that really matters. (There are techniques for the curing of
syphilis that demonstrably work better than mercury, etc.)
> Perish the thought that someone's beliefs and "therapy" might be wrong.
Reread the beginning. I didn't disagree with this possibility. I merely
point out that you have failed to prove that past life therapy is
substitutable in all cases with other therapeutic approaches which have a
demonstrably increased prognosis for recovery.
Until you can do that, all your objections are theoretical, and do not
matter in the real world.
Clinical psych is the most down-to-earth brand of psych out there. It
cares about what works, not with what is supposed to work according to
some theorist.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Rimblesah
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:02:39 -0600, Rimblesah wrote:
> >On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> >
> >If you qualified for a diagnosis, you were used as a subject for the
> >research. I think the timeframe was six months... if after six months
> >you no longer qualified for a DSM-IV diagnosis then you were "better".
> >IIRC, the research was done blind (ie the surveyors didn't know if the
> >people were in the "therapy" or "no-therapy" group).
>
> Not too bad, as these things go. At least objective behavior was
> measured, rather than subjective reports of "feeling better". The
> problem with results in psychotherapy is that you need to look at the
> individual over a long period of time to determine if the effect was
> lasting or not.
Yep. But it's the best research I've heard of to date. If you have
better, by all means please reference it.
BTW, I wonder if you're aware of the multitude of ways flaws can be
introduced into research projects? And if you are indeed aware of this,
then why do you so worship the academic word?
I've had the pleasure of taking class under one of the emminent
psychometrics experts in the world, and have had the added pleasure of
taking class under one of the emminent experts for gun control (this was
a criminology class) in the world.
(If you care, the first was Rod McDonald, who among other things created
"McDonald's omega", which has been demonstrated to provide a better lower
bound of reliability than Cronbach's alpha 100% of the time--pity
coefficient omega hasn't replaced coeefficient alpha in common research
practice, but I understand it's available in both SAS and SPSS. The
other is professor Bordua, who was summoned to testify before
congress--along with his former prodigy--on matters of gun control during
the semester I was taking his class.)
The only reason I mention this is because both of these people have shown
me how prevalent flawed research is. Just because it's in the literature
doesn't mean it's right. In fact, imho probably 80% of the research has
some flaw in it, and some 20% has fatal flaws.
It is because of them that I do not see science as a necessarily valid
approach to learning about the world around us.
It is always and always will be a process which flawed human beings with
egos and limited intelligence will engage in. That it was designed by
humans only further testifies to its probable failings.
It's good for what it does, sometimes. Let's leave it at that.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Marty G. Price
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, root wrote:
> The problem is how on earth make it a science.
> Fantasizing about the past is certainly not therapy
> but there has been some real work done in this area
> and cases of people gaining relief from certain conditions.
> Check out Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery.
>
> ( Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure we couldn't all
> have been Mark Antony )
For some scientific studies of past life recall, check out the work of Ian
Stevenson of the University of Virginia. He has spent many years checking
out past-life memories of children, and offers careful, limited
conclusions. I sure he's not the only researcher to find valid, if
limited, evidence of past-life recall.
As for the title items of the thread (Past life therapy), and for any
attempt to "recover" the past via hypnosis --- anyone who deliberately
sets out to create what may well be a false memory is highly
irresponsible; an individual who does so is foolish; a therapist who
does so is a menace to his/her every patient. (Which is not to say that
*every* therapist who deals with past-life recall is a quack, but is a
recommendation for *extreme* caution.) We are suggestable
creatures, and without corraborating evidence have no way to know the
difference between our genuine memories and our fantasies.
I love the idea of getting in touch with my past lives --- but not at the
risk of "getting in touch with" some bad movie fantasy which I and a
therapist accidently mutually concoct.
Blessed Be,
Gale
LazzWaldo
Bem P. Allen wrote:
(Ed Wollman couldn'o' made this up!)
> Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
> abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
> science' point of view."
Sometimes. Usually it will have more merit to the academician who has wasted
his life on learning decadent, obtuse, and useless information and needs to
justify it all, somehow. This is when a philosphical position has more merit
than a hard science point of view. This academician HAS no hard science point
of view. And to this sad academician, something, even if it's wrong, is better
than nothing.
LazzWaldo
Rimblesah wrote:
>Quit being a control freak, and leave this
>person to their own assessment of their outcome.
Who are you to deny that Tom's method might not be more therapeutic?
LazzWaldo
Ed Wollman/Al Simak wrote:
>LazzWaldo wrote:
>> *YOU* are the one ignorant of astrology if you can't use it to help find
signs,
>> houses, and aspects etc. by their identifying traits.
>Why would I want to?
You wouldn't. Because if you did you would see that your whole life has been a
sham.
> >>What would guessing a person's sun sign prove?
>> It would go a long way toward proving that astrology isn't just a shitload
of
>> monday morning quarterbacking
>Nope wouldn't prove anything.
Yes, it would. Your refusal to try and guess is a telling evasion.
> Did you figure out who alsimak is yet?
Yes, I made it very plain for all to see. I caught you in another lie. That's
pretty vile and dishonest, Ed. Totally out of integrity to post under a
pseudonym and behave as if you were another person, even carrying the ruse so
far as to agree with your other "self". Are you proud of such childish and
dishonest tactics?
You would have gone on for days like that. But now that I've embarrassed you by
uncovering your scam, you're posting smileys and trying to make it all seem
like a joke.
>:-)))))))
Your shit-eating grin is even filthier and more peanut-ridden than usual.
>Now where did you come up with those budweiser frogs?
I don't know why you keep harping on this. I did not create the budweiser
frogs, so, naturally, the "where" is a moot point.
You must have me confused with someone else.
God knows, you confuse yourself with someone else.
How does it feel to be shown up in public like a fucking liar, once again?
How can you have any clients who would trust someone as deceptive and
fraudulent as you are?
I don't think pacbell.net is going to be very happy with their new San Diego
client's posting habits.
Say bye-bye, Eddie! AGAIN!
joshua geller
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven (J. Singleton)) writes:
> | > words.
> | Thoughts.
> Phosphor Dots.
> Modem SCREECH and BUZZ.
> All this thread must have a point.
>
> (Wonder what it was!)
the point goes away after two or three iterations.
btw david, that is what you are not getting.
best always,
josh
Edmond Wollmann
Greg Lynn wrote:
> In article <34627B...@sdsu.com>, woll...@sdsu.com says...
> >> Beating hearts exist in objective reality
> >So does astrology.
> But you have said in previous posts that reality itself is dependent
> upon each individual's construct of it, and therefore objective reality
> , in your viewpoint, was an illusion. Are you being the strawman again?
No, you are misunderstanding as usual-or the spin doctors rather than
scientists you have DEMONSTRATED (not proven) yourselves to be. Physical
reality is a "real" reality-all realities are real. Real while you are
in them but illusions none the less. We create the physical reality we
experience en mass collectively albeit primarily unconsciously-we have
created astrology as a part of that defintion and reality-therefore it
exists in objective reality. Like all realities however, each person
creates their version of that collective objectified version, their each
reality.
It is from the higher self that all paradox arises. Simply because it is
not empirically testable is not an indicator or its realness anymore
than your dreams are unreal (don't happen) because we cannot measure
them.
> >> and do not hide from science.
> >Neither does astrology.
> Then why is it so difficult for you to prove it is a proven science?
A) NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN! Learn some science and stop promoting this
COMPLETELY UNACCEPTED notion by the academic community that ANYTHING is
EVER proven.
B) I never said it was an empirical science or that it was NECESSARY to
prove it for it to be useful, valid or viable.
C) Life will NEVER be a deterministic science because we have free will
as demonstrated by the Trinity of identity (Fire signs) 5th house,
Cardinal mode, the fact that we can reflect upon our own existence etc.,
etc. ad infinitum.
> Is
> it possible that astrology, being a theory with a semi-scientific
> emprical basis, cannot hold up to repeated experimentation?
Can it be that you are an uninformed neophyte who knows neither science
or enough about astrology to ask other than probing questions to first
LEARN what you need to learn to make realisitic appraisals or BEGIN to
peer review?
--
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness."
Albert Einstein
Jim Rogers
LazzWaldo wrote:
Ed's problem is in assuming that Bem's words apply to astrology, which
is neither well thought out nor too abstract to be tested
scientifically.
Astrology depends on an objective independent variable: the (virtual)
view of the solar system at the time and place of one's birth. All one
need do to test it scientifically is control that variable and see
whether the difference between "correct" natal ephemerides and "forged"
natal ephemerides is discernable by a competent astrologer in counsel
with test subjects, w/o knowing true birth details.
Jim
Brian Johnson
J. Karlin wrote:
>
> Rimblesah wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> > >
> > > > You are speaking in generalities. I am speaking about what I have
> > > >experienced and no one has ever TOLD ME what to see or believe. No one ever
> > > >stated a date, and time a place. I was only asked What do you see now????
> > >
> > > To sell hoodoo as psychotherapy is unethical and deceitful.
> >
> > I'll tell you what I think is unethical.
>
> your 'methodology'?
>
> > To undermine progress achieved by another therapist.
>
> money earned through lying to people?
>
> > Shut the fuck up, Tom.
>
> side' boil down to.
>
> > It is not for you to assert whether or not the
> > technique was valid.
>
>
> > You are not responsible that patient's well-being.
>
> past-lives 'therapy' is certainly acting for the
> well-being of ANY patients who might be victimized by
> it and the frauds who promote it.
>
> > You want to speak in generalities, that's fine. You are entitled to your
> > opinions.
>
> Make up your feeble mind.
>
> > But it is grossly unprofessional and unethical to
>
>
> > try to
> > convince a specific person who has been to therapy that the techniques used
> > didn't really help them.
>
>
> > Quit being a control freak, and leave this
> > person to their own assessment of their outcome.
>
> to what's really happened to them?
>
> > The only time this *might* not apply is if you can point to discrete and
> > obvious outcomes from the therapeutic process which are dysfunctional to
> > the patient's well-being.
>
> as 'dysfunctional' as you can get.
>
> (jk)
What does any of this have to do with astrology? It is rather
hypocritical for some on the astrology discussion group to chase off
"trolls" who offer skeptical views of astrology whilst the chasers go on
and on about blatantly non-astrological subjects. It sounds like this
is just a metaphysical forum with the title of "astrology newsgroup."
--
Brian Johnson
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann spoke out of both sides of his mouth:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Al Simak wrote:
> > > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > LazzWaldo wrote:
> > > > > > Ed Wollman wrote:
> > > > > > >astrology works, I can see
> > > > > > >it-clients can see it, but it cannot be measured (as of yet).
First you said that it "can't be measured."
> > > > > > If it can't be measured, then you cannot say with certainty that it works.
> > > > > I can measure it, but it cannot be measured (at this time) by any
> > > > > standard acceptable to the scientific community.
Then you amended this to "can't be measured by any [scientific]
standard."
> > > > I am glad to see you finally agree to this point. The "measuring" you do
> > > > can easily be chock full of self-deception and you wouldn't know,
> > > > because it doesn't employ scientific controls.
> > > Why is this? Do you need science to tell you your heart is beating? Or
> > > does it just confirm what you already know?
> > Beating hearts exist in objective reality
> So does astrology.
> > and do not hide from science.
> Neither does astrology.
And now you amend this further yet to "neither does astrology [hide from
science]." What in the blue blazes could you possibly mean by astrology
"not hiding from science" if it's immeasurable by science?
Since you agree that astrology "exists in objective reality," which was
never in question, what's the problem with objective examination of it?
> What is your experience with astrology and what
> applications have you used to observe whether there is a connection or
> not?
> One cannot see something one does not look at.
Your posts provide more than enough condemning evidence, Eddy boy.
> --
> "The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armor of a
> righteous cause, is stronger than all of the hosts of error."
> William Jennings Bryan, speech 1896
> --
> The Lofty One
> Al Simak
Oops. Forgot to revert that sig line, "Al." Gotcha.
Jim
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800, "Nona and Kari"
>The terms Past Life Therapy comes from the perception that there are past lives,
>and searching into them can be and usually is therapeutic.
You seem very sincere, so I'll try to be as polite as possible, but...
Just how does one go about receiving these perceptions? Generally in
this NG I read about people confirming past lives through the use of
circumstantial physical evidence:
1. Linguistic analysis: Tricky at best, because of just how much
language we can absorb, especially below the age of three. Example: I
learned to speak classical Greek quite well as an undergrad, because I
grew up in an extended family with Lebanese, Serbian, Croat, and
Ukrainian relatives (if you can imagine that!). So, even though I
never learned any of these languages, I was exposed to the *phonemes*,
the building-blocks of sound that the languages come from. Unless
your subject speaks in long grammatically correct sentences in an
unknown and ancient tongue, merely locating a group (and it could be a
large group) of phonemes won't prove much of anything.
2. Reconstructed memories: check out Elizabeth Loftus' article this
month in Scientific American. She's wonderful at demonstrating how
easily our memories can be altered to include events that never
happened.
3. Regressions: Age regression is play-acting. All one has to do is
age regress an adult to a four-year-old, then place a tall thin glass
of milk and a short fat empty glass of milk in front of them. (The
glass *must* hold exactly the same amount of milk for this to work).
Then pour the milk from the tall thin glass into the short fat glass.
Ask the age-regressed subject where did the extra milk go. They will
say: "Nowhere", indicating they understand the principle of
conservation. Real four-year-olds don't and will make a silly
explanation like: "Into space, or under the floor". Basic Piaget
developmental psychology.
>go ahead and
>forget the very idea, but don't tell me that just because you don't believe
>in it, and don't approve of it, that I haven't the right to explore it, or
>believe in it. I have the right to live my life in my own way..
Of course you do. But, what avenue are you using? Let's jump out of
the physical sciences for a moment and go to the realm of the
paranormal. Are you a functioning clairvoyant? A few questions:
1. Which body are you tracking through a past life? It can't be the
physical body, and it can't be the vital sheath (aka the ghost-body)
because that was formed in the womb from the vital energy of the
mother, and kept alive by elements from this Earth.
2. If it's an astral body, are you sure that all the effects you see
are the result of earthly incarnations? Edgar Cayce made this point in
the 1920s that many incarnations were not on Earth at all, but
elsewhere in the solar system, or in the astral worlds immediately
above us in terms of dimensional frequency. How would you know for
sure?
3. Are you sure that all of your subjects have always kept a human
form? You have to be able to perceive Level 4 (heart chakra) and Level
5 (throat chakra) to be sure. Probably only 1000 people on the planet
right now can perceive Level 5. If you're one of them, I'm interested
in corresponding with you!
Peace. I will pray for light in your suffering.
Br. Kurt.
Rimblesah
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
> Do psychologists just make
> it up as they go along or do they choose from a list of possible methods?
> If they are just trying things at random, then they have no idea if it will
> work again. Even if they have a list of approaches that work sometimes on
> some people that they will try until one works, they may still cause
> significant harm. Wouldn't it be better to have an idea why treatment A
> works for some people and not others?
Do shrinks just make it up as they go along? Yes and no.
No, in the sense that there are some established paradigms and hueristics
which are taught that have a proven track record for fascilitating
treatment of psychologicl disorders. Sometimes these contradict one
another, but that probably just means that there is often more than one
way to get to where you need to go. Or perhaps it means that with the
complexity of human nature, there will always be a need for multiple ways
to approach psychotherapy.
Yes, in the sense that you can know damn well that you have to get your
patient to open up and start talking, but you have no real idea how to go
about doing it. Do you start off with something simple and indirect,
like, "I see you're wearing a Bulls cap; I'm a Bulls fan" or do you
plunge right in with, "Well, you're here for depression... why don't you
tell me what events led to your being depressed?"
Depending on a whole slew of factors, either of these may or may not be
beneficial, neutral, or even harmful. Sometimes you come to an impasse
where you don't have any evidence for figuring out how to proceed. So
you just take the plunge, keeping your eyes on the goal, and hope that
where you've chosen to plunge in will eventually lead you there.
> >There are good reasons to include
> >theories that do not meet scientific criteria well.
>
> Such as?
It may help the client, despite a lack of scientific "proof".
> >In fact, strengths
> >in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
> >some more scientific theories.
>
> More valuable in what way?
It may help the client better.
> >Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
> >abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
> >science' point of view."
>
> Merit in what way?
Because it will better help the client.
> Merit because it sounds fascinating?
No, because it would help the client.
> Or merit because it is a good model for what's being studied?
There is a tendency for models that wind up being "good" also end up
being helpful to clients. But not always. Discard good models if they
don't deliver and utilize without prejudice bad models which do deliver.
Whatever is best for the client.
> How would you know if it was untestable?
Because you couldn't figure out how to test it?
There *might* always be someone out there who could test it. That
something appears untestable is always merely a personal observation, not
an objective statement of reality, imho.
Just my $.025 on the matter.
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Rimblesah
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Rimblesah wrote:
> Sure. I never said anything to the contrary. Good therapy consists of
> things like forming a strong therapeutic alliance (tm), etc. etc. etc.
>
> These things are not compatible with past life therapy.
Whoa! Major typo. That was supposed to be, "These things are not
*in*compatible with past life therapy."
A thousand pardons, please!
-R
WBN?
Jim Rogers
Note follow-ups; add back one group if really necessary.
Rimblesah wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800, "Nona and Kari"
> > > You are speaking in generalities. I am speaking about what I have
> > >experienced and no one has ever TOLD ME what to see or believe. No one ever
> > >stated a date, and time a place. I was only asked What do you see now????
> > To sell hoodoo as psychotherapy is unethical and deceitful.
> I'll tell you what I think is unethical.
>
> To undermine progress achieved by another therapist.
>
> Shut the fuck up, Tom. It is not for you to assert whether or not the
> technique was valid. You are not responsible that patient's well-being.
You apparently don't know anyone who's disowned their family because
some "therapist" used hypnotic regression "therapy" to help "recall"
details of "childhood sexual abuse" that, per all other evidence, simply
could not have occurred. You apparently don't know anyone with MPD
because a "therapist" coaxed additional personalities out of them, in
"therapy." In case you're wondering, yes, I do (details will NOT be
shared, to protect privacy of innocents).
Ethics? You want to tout ETHICS??? Take your "past life therapy," your
"hypnotic regression therapy," and all associated bushwah, roll it up
into a tight little ball, and shove it up your ass. Someone has to speak
out against these abuses by "professional therapists," and shout it from
the highest mountains.
> You want to speak in generalities, that's fine. You are entitled to your
> opinions. But it is grossly unprofessional and unethical to try to
> convince a specific person who has been to therapy that the techniques used
> didn't really help them. Quit being a control freak, and leave this
> person to their own assessment of their outcome.
And let's sue those abusive therapists who're only looking to make a
name for themselves at the expense of their patients' well-being right
into the ground and out the other side, and criminally prosecute them
for reckless endangerment of all of their patients.
> The only time this *might* not apply is if you can point to discrete and
> obvious outcomes from the therapeutic process which are dysfunctional to
> the patient's well-being.
Done. This is a world-wide open forum, so you're not going to ever see
much more than generalities, for obvious reasons of privacy.
> Excuse the french, folks. I feel very, very strongly about this.
Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Some precious few may be "helped" at the expense
of many, many of whom are brainwashed into also thinking that they're
"helped" by having their minds destroyed in "therapy." Whatever happened
to the Hippocratic, "First, do no harm"?
Jim
Rimblesah
On 7 Nov 1997, joshua geller wrote:
> the point goes away after two or three iterations.
>
> btw david, that is what you are not getting.
You are one of these, "I'll believe my world into whatever I want"
people, aren't you?
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Rimblesah
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, J. Karlin wrote:
> Rimblesah wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Tom Schuler wrote:
> > >
> > > To sell hoodoo as psychotherapy is unethical and deceitful.
> >
> > I'll tell you what I think is unethical.
>
> People introducing ethics into a discussion of
> your 'methodology'?
Just so as we're clear who you're favorably posturing yourself against,
it was Tom who did that.
> > To undermine progress achieved by another therapist.
>
> You mean the progress of his filling his bank account with
> money earned through lying to people?
Ya know, I was stating reasons for thinking what I thought. Why don't
you try it sometime? It's easy to criticize when we don't expose
ourselves for criticism.
> > Shut the fuck up, Tom.
>
> Which I believe is all the arguments of the 'other
> side' boil down to.
Get a clue. I didn't say that because I disagreed with his stance on
past life therapy. If you don't understand that, reread the original
comments. I would never react that way to someone who simply posted an
opposing pov.
> > It is not for you to assert whether or not the
> > technique was valid.
>
> Why not?
Uh, because of the next line, which you helpfully quoted....
> > You are not responsible that patient's well-being.
>
> I think anyone interested in questioning junk like
> past-lives 'therapy' is certainly acting for the
> well-being of ANY patients who might be victimized by
> it and the frauds who promote it.
If you have a problem, say, depression, and a technique--no matter how
reprehensible you find the technique to be--cures them of said
depression, then what do you care?
The only reason you can provide boils down to self-aggrandizement.
You're basically upset because someone who isn't you is using methods you
would not use. And you are so upset by this that you cannot help but
vehemently criticize.
If you undermine the process *sometimes* you can undermine the very
results that were achieved. IOW, you can wind up reintroducing the
depression.
Now maybe you don't think this is unethical. Frankly, the idea of anyone
deliberately promoting a psychological disorder in someone is
reprehensible to me, but the idea that this would be done by someone who
has pursued a mental health services profession is so much worse. That
it was done in the process of stroking one's own ego is the epitome of
everything that could be wrong in a mental health professional.
It is grossly inappropriate for a mental health professional to undermine
the recovery of a patient simply because the patient's therapist used a
technique that said professional would not have used.
It is also the epitome of all that is wrong with arrogance, about the
real damage you can do to yourself and to others by being stuck up about
your own "wisdoms".
There is an excellent chance that the person will not be damaged by Tom's
actions. And that is good.
But if there is any possibility, no matter how remote, that damage might
be done, than Tom had better have a better reason up his sleeve for
risking this than "he disagrees with the chosen therapy". No matter how
many reasons he may have, or how even how valid they are.
The mental health profession exists to benefit its clients, and for that
reason alone. The effects on the clients justify the profession's
existance. Tom has no right to risk undermining a patient's benefits.
> > You want to speak in generalities, that's fine. You are entitled to your
> > opinions.
>
> But you just told him to shut the fuck up.
> Make up your feeble mind.
My mind is not feeble. Tom was not talking in generalities at that
point--he was talking to a past patient about the treatment they
received. It's not even that subtle of a distinction--how did you miss it?
If he wants to talk about the pros and cons of the technique to a general
audience again, that's fine.
> > But it is grossly unprofessional and unethical to
>
> Defend nonsense as 'therapy'.
Easy, fool. If the nonsense helps the client, then it's therapeutic.
> > try to
> > convince a specific person who has been to therapy that the
> > techniques used didn't really help them.
>
> Why is that either 'unethical' OR unprofessional?
Because it can (note that this is not the same as "will") undermine the
benefits of the therapy is why it's unethical. It's unprofessional
because professionals within a field that is new and still evolving like
psychology know that they don't have all the answers and so stay
open-minded about any technique which may help them help a patient.
> > Quit being a control freak, and leave this
> > person to their own assessment of their outcome.
>
> Again, why? Are you afraid their eyes might be opened
> to what's really happened to them?
And what's that? That they benefitted from the therapy? They already
know that. I'm "afraid" that Tom might cause them to forget this fact.
> > The only time this *might* not apply is if you can point to discrete and
> > obvious outcomes from the therapeutic process which are dysfunctional to
> > the patient's well-being.
>
> Lying to patients
It's not a lie unless you know it's not factual. There are very few hard
and fast rules within clinical psychology--that one person (or even if
all of mainstream psychology) happens to find the technique unfounded
does not make it a lie. It means you have a difference of opinion. That
there is a lack of scientific data to support the therapy does not change
the fact that it is a difference of opinion, nor does this fact
invalidate the therapy. Even if science disproves some of the premises,
if the clients benefit then it is valid enough. And the rest is a matter
of opinion.
Tom has no right trying to force his opinions upon a psychiatric patient,
past or present.
Tom, what did you say about a therapist's perception that a patient isn't
really better until they've come around to the therapist's way of thinking?
-Rimblesah
Why be normal, when your care for the client's well-being outweighs your
need to validate your own particular position?
Rimblesah
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, J. Karlin wrote:
> Rimblesah wrote:
>
> > These things are not compatible with past life therapy. To be sure, I am
> > not an advocate of past life therapy.
>
> You sure sound like it.
That's because you haven't thought critically yet. If you were thinking
critically, you would see that I am against Tom's closed mindedness, not
for past life therapy per se.
It occurred to me that there would be people out there who would miss
this distinction. So I thought I'd point it out.
> > I am just more open minded about
> > it than you.
>
> What does that mean? You mean you don't promote it but
> you have no problem with those that do? Is that it?
By george! I think he's got it.
*I* have no need to convince the world to think like I do.
It would not appear that neither Tom nor yourself can say this.
> > > What
> > > does "better" mean? Does it mean that you feel good for a while? I
> > > pointed out that research shows that many psychotherapists describe
> > > their patients as "getting better" as the patient's value system
> > > approaches that of the therapist's.
> >
> > Yeah yeah...
>
> Yeah, what?
If you read the following, you'd almost think I didn't in fact clarify
what "better" meant....
> It's very easy to dismiss facts that don't
> support your point of view, isn't it? That's the whole
> problem with promoting things like 'past-lives' as
> a form of therapy. By the time a 'therapist' gets through
> brainwashing the 'client' sufficiently that the person
> would even consider accepting such hogwash as potentially
> 'therapeutic', of course they will be inclined to
> imagine that their sessions are doing them some good.
> As pointed out above, THAT'S true for ANY form of
> mind-control, whether subtle or obvious.
>
> What was it one of you said---
>
> "Well there is the idea of placebos and the Hawthorne
> effect-whats the difference? And what about diffusion of
> responsibility and individuation? These are real effects
> and if someone wants to manipulate them to ensure
> greater efficacy why not? Why learn them to begin with?"
>
> In other words, why learn shrinkism in the first place
> if you're not going to use it to manipulate people
> into believing what you think is true OR at least what
> you need THEM to think is true for as long as it
> takes to get your money out of them.
>
> I'd say that pretty much sums up the 'ethic' being
> advanced here by those in favor of such things
> as 'past-lives therapy'.
Maybe, just maybe, there are people out there, people who have suffered,
and who because of that want to reduce the suffering of others? I
suppose you aren't aware of the truism out there that says that every
clinician is someone who needed one in the past?
You can believe that none of us actually help people. You can believe
that we use our talents to convince people to give us money. You can
believe in flying cows and the tooth fairy and a green sky too.
Your beliefs in these matters are irrelevant. (Not to mention uninformed.)
> > > So, are they "getting better" or are they only being indoctrinated?
> >
> > So how do you define "better"?
> >
> > I would define it as reduction or elimination of dysfunctional mental
> > processes. Dysfunctional mental processes are those which can be
> > reasonably assumed to cause a marked impairment of life satisfaction
>
> So when you stop someone from being a concentration-camp
> guard and instead put him on trial for crimes against humanity
> then you're imposing a 'dysfunctional' process upon him?
You're so quick to criticize me that you completely missed the "mental
processes" part. It's kind of intrinsic to the definition of recovery of
mental illness.
> I'm curious. How do you measure 'life satisfaction' (whatever
> that's supposed to be)?
And now you've proven the folly implicit in definition games. *Any*
definition (as you, my unwitting assistant have so aptly pointed out) is
subject to further scrutiny because every definition is made up of words
which can be subjected to the "define that word!" cry of the rabidly
critical mind.
You do it well--you've pointed out a whole slew of terms and phrases
which truly need to be defined before my use of "better" could be understood:
> > or marked impairment of ability to function,
>
> To function as what?
>
> > which is not transitory
>
> All life is transitory.
>
> > and
> > is not a normal reaction to life events,
>
> You knew the (other) 'N' word would show up.
>
> > and are not due to lifestyle
> > choices, religious beliefs, etc. etc. blah blah.
>
> How come 'lifestyle choices' and 'religious beliefs'
> let you off the hook?
An excellent job, o rabidly critical one. If I defined or explained we'd
have <Rimblesah counts> 5 tangential discussions going on. And each of
those definitions or explinations would be subject to further scrutiny by
the rabidly critical mind. And on and on it would go.
Taken to the logical extreme, you'd wind up with circular logic, because
pretty soon you'd be using previously "defined" (but not properly
defined) words in your definitions. The ultimately circular logic this
game plays is yet another reason the call for definitions can defeat
profitable discussion.
When you add onto this the fact that even with definitions words mean
different things to different people....
This is a dead-end as far as facilitating mutual understanding goes.
IMHO, it is better to just discuss, and when it becomes clear thru the
process of discussion that there are different word usages being kicked
around, you touch upon it then, if it happens.
The idea that you *have* to have well-defined terms in order to
intellectually discuss something is a myth.
So, rather than launch on 5 tangentially related circular arguments, I
think I'll stop wasting everybody's time and get back to the discussion
on the validity (or lack thereof) of past life therapy.
<rest of definition discussion snipped>
> 'this discussion' started back when I questioned the
> legitimacy of 'past-lives' promoted as 'therapy'. I've
> seen no rational argument given by anyone as to why
> that questioning is improper.
So? By what logic is this relevant?
> I have instead seen a lot
> of posts by a lot of people demanding their rights to
> promote anything they want to as therapy, so long
> as their patients feel 'better' when it's used.
What else does the field of clinical psych exist for?
> You know, psychology was born in the mental con games
> of the occult
<sighs> No, my friend. Psychology was debated as a topic within the
philosophy field back during Aristotle's time and place. It probably
goes back in this form even further back, and almost assuredly goes
further back as an informal discipline.
> , and that it still seems to find comfort
> residing in those fuzzy rooms does not surprise me.
Actually, mainstream psychology is pretty firmly against anything not
derived from science. You don't know what you're talking about.
<rest of baseless statements snipped>
-Rimblesah
Why be normal?
Nona and Kari
It is everyone's choice to live their lives their own way. Everyone is
on their own journey. Any relief I have gained in regards to Past Life
Therapy was in helping me understand certain memories I had before ever
undergoing hypnosis, and It happened. I don't care if any of you "Skeptics"
believe me or not. I have a right to post anything I please on this NG. If
you object to the word "therapy", then that is also your problem. It is
considered therapy. This also doesn't mean it is the perfect therapy for
every disorder or complaint. As far as science, it has it's place. Many of
the so called science tests done on patients not only are done properly,
many signs of disease are disregarded. It has been through my own
Metaphysical experiences that I have known what to ask the doctors to check
for, and how certain problems in my back were discovered. I am not the kind
of person that rely's solely on metaphysical or paranormal abilities to keep
as healthy as I can. Science defiantly is part of everyone's life. But
to rule out any aspect of life that might be helpful or change ones
perspective of the World and how it works is incredibly surprising to me.
To limit oneself is to make life to put it extremely simple for you,
limiting.
Kari
Marty G. Price
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Rimblesah wrote:
> It's not a lie unless you know it's not factual. There are very few hard
> and fast rules within clinical psychology--that one person (or even if
> all of mainstream psychology) happens to find the technique unfounded
> does not make it a lie. It means you have a difference of opinion. That
> there is a lack of scientific data to support the therapy does not change
> the fact that it is a difference of opinion, nor does this fact
> invalidate the therapy. *****Even if science disproves some of the
premises,
> if the clients benefit then it is valid enough.***** And the rest is a
matter
> of opinion.
>
[emphasis in above mine]
Do you really mean that? Does truth mean nothing to you?
You are very, very sick.
And very, very dangerous.
Only the most arrogant and most amoral of humans would deliberately teach
lies. Even an honest con-man believes his own lies. YOu are less than
that.
Gale
maberry
LazzWaldo wrote:
>
> Kari wrote:
>
> >I have the right to live my life in my own way..
>
> So do heroin addicts.
>
> So do cult members who are not even aware that they've been brainwashed.
....here's some more brilliant comedy from Lazz....
peace
maberry
Raven (J. Singleton)
root
you are one of these I can have it both ways people aren't you ?
or has belief stopped shaping reality ??
--
l...@loop.com
Nilsa Gorey
Dear Tom,
Read urgently "The Search for Grace" by Dr. Bruce Goldberg, and "Across
Time and Death", by Jenny Cockell. You'll find the evidence you are
looking for on these books. Meanwhile I'll look for other titles, in
case you are sincerely interested on the subject, and have an open mind
about it. Otherwise it's a waste of time...
Love and Peace,
Nilsa
Nilsa Gorey
Dear Tom,
Here's another title on this subject:
"A Soul Remembers Hiroshima", by Dolores Cannon. And if you really want
to understand what goes on during the process of a past life regression
session, don't miss Bruce Goldberg's "Past Lives, Future Lives.
Love and Peace,
Nilsa