massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
So, is the wolf pack satisfied?
You've driven him off. The Wolf Pack can celebrate.
But before you all start shaking each others paws (or doing whatever else - Pulp Fiction fans can smile at The Wolf reference ) there's something that I'll say about that.
First off, I'm amazed that he stuck around so long. In fact, it occured to me today that the arguments against him keep repeating over and over and over, it's a wonder he didn't bail way before now.
To recap the arguments put to him:
1. Who is he to be an authority?
He repeatedly said he isn't. Any scientist would say that there is not authority in science. But apparently some people on here *need* authority figures.
2. He is against energy work (and therefore is regarded as the Devil incarnate).
He has an opinion on it, he expressed it, he gave his reasons for his opinion and time and time again he is regarded as the Anti-Christ for having that opinion, which have been formed from what he knows from the data provided by science. Apparently his opinion on it resonated through every thread, even when the threads were initially on a subject that had nothing to do with energy work - he was hounded for it.
3. He is narrow-minded because of his opinion on energy work
This one blows my mind. He has contributed a lot to massage therapy research (even though some who are obviously not familiar with his work would argue that point) and he has never been thanked for it by anyone on this site (If I'm wrong correct me) This "narrow-minded argument" has been thrown at him when it is blatantly obvious that the ones throwing the argument have made no attempt to understand why he has reached his conclusions. If there was any attempt to do that, meaningful discussions besides "Science isn't there yet" and the same ol' weak arguments wouldn't have been popping up again and again. And people not understanding *why* the "science isn't there yet* argument and those other ones are weak is pretty clear. It amazes me that this total lack of an attempt to understand another person's point of view and why they have reached it can be held by any massage therapist. I had thought that we were empathetic people and the basis of empathy is understanding. But apparently I was wrong.
4. A new one thrown at him was that science and engineering are not the same. As an ex-software engineer who has a Masters in Computer Science I can say that before I knew the guy that you've just forced out, I didn't know the difference between external and internal validity and it's importance in the linkage between cause and effect. After being aware of my ignorance he pointed me towards the right books (both he and Kim Goral did this, who has probably given up on this site too) to get myself a bit more educated. He gets tackled on some study that was slammed because it didn't reflect the real world and he had mentioned internal validity. The discussion could have been about that, but no, it didn't reflect what we wanted to see and it didn't tell us what we wanted to hear, he brought up internal validity and that was it - slam him.
Anyway, back to the engineer/science poke (on which there could be a debate, but who really cares?) This ex-engineer can state that there's a big difference between unveiling nature and using patterns from nature to build. The latter is easier. It's logical and good - it can be replicated, it's easily testable and it's much more easily critiqued. That's because the human element is taken out. But that's just an opinion and if anyone tackles me on it, I don't care. Opinions are like brown orifices - facts and data are quite nice some of the time.
I'm sure there are other things that I could bring up here, but there's probably no point. Those ones are the main ones. I've learned a lot from him - it's a pity others couldn't see the benefit from him being on here.
Anyway, I'd just like to say that before anyone regards him leaving here as a victory and "Yay for us - we win!", I'd just like to say that yes, it is a victory - a victory for ignorance, intolerance and a lack of understanding.
Way to go.
Views: 286
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
About the only thing I haven't heard insulted on this site is someones momma...and that could just be a matter of time.
Well, actually, Ty, Gary considers referring to when Chris' mother "lost her pills 30 years ago" appropriate professional discourse, so even that's been done here.
Thank you and Choice and Vlad for standing up to bullying behavior, but I agree with Chris and Choice--life's too short to repeat an experience as boring as junior high dynamics in the name of anti-knowledge.
Ty said:Okay - here's my response: When I joined this site the big "skeptical about energy work" thread (over 600 replies I believe) was going full force. I believed full tilt in energy work at the time and jumped in both feet with my opinion. For those not around then this was quite the lively discussion. While there was considerable disagreement about this subject everyone remained civil for the most part. I don't recall nasty name calling, credential checking or extreme bullying. Well times have changed - our manners have become poorer, our passion about our work and our beliefs has become abusive. I've learned this site is cyclical - same,same,same, hmmm..a bit boring and then Wham! Someone lights a fire with a topic and rather than listening to each other we now start a verbal fist fight. About the only thing I haven't heard insulted on this site is someones momma...and that could just be a matter of time.
This site for me used to be about meeting other therapists and hearing their opinions. I appreciate diversity, I appreciate passion, I appreciate that people are willing to share their experience and knowledge with all on these pages. If people with differing opinions, with different experiences, different levels of education are subjected to bullying and name calling then this is not the mbp that I want to experience and you might notice that with over 8,000 members only a small percentage post.
At this point I would like to see this site as a source that continues to make me think, research, study and occasionally have a laugh.
This part is for Chris - Thank You. You have caused me re-evaluate some of my beliefs and you, along with others, have made me realize I needed to research more what I "was" telling my clients. I appreciate education along with experience Dr. Moyer and you have helped add to my education even if I was kicking and screaming at the time. I also learned you can be a funny guy......:)
It was posted once when Rosemary left "it was our loss". This applies again.
Ty (also known as Terry Capuano,NCTMB)
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon J. Wallis on
-
Hmm, Im semi new here...and missed the whole discussion (argument? lol, fight? ) on energy work...I try to keep an open mind. But energy work, as I know it, is? Well its done nothing for me personally...Ive tried to understand it by getting energy work? And even trying to develope it myself. And its just come up zero for me...But maybe Ive never met someone that really can do energy work.?. Or its not useful for my particular aches and pains? I do much better with an elbow in my back. Im not arguing...just have never had a practical experience from it...? I was an electronic technician in the army many years ago..and I understand the relationship between electric currents and magnetic fields. And I know that our bodies are bio-electric, and must give off a magnetic field..But on a practical level, Im not able to feel it in myself or others...And when I meet people that say they can. I feel no benefit from it? Im sure there is an energy field around our bodies I actually have no doubt....I just dont see any practical way to utilize it thats any better then a regular massage? Again not arguing.. Just dont get it...Is it a gift? Or can anyone learn energy work? The times Ive paid for it...I felt ripped off...I just cant afford to test it out again. Sorry if Im bringing up old arguments.. I dont mean too....Dont know what this thread is referring too...And Im not against energy work. Just dont get it? Body work is such a HUGE field anyway. I have plenty to learn in other areas..Learning never stops....Maybe someday, I will take another look at Energy work..- Gordon
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Jeffrey on
-
Victory???? it will take more than a pack of wolves to keep Christopher away from MBP.
Thats my prediction.:)
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on
-
I have in fact personally come to Christopher's defense a few times, and I have also slammed the personal attacks that go on here. I've been on the road and not checking in as often but I assume that he must have left because of hostility??
That's a shame. And as far as people making the attacks, I know some of them too, and in person they are perfectly nice people who are just passionate about what they do. This method of conversing makes it easier for people to let it all hang out, so to speak, and that includes acting badly, which is unfortunate. As for MY mama, she taught me a few manners. Whatever happened to taking the high road, listening to other people's opinions and respecting their right to have them without a conversation deteriorating into some of the ridiculous crap that it has on here? If my mother saw me acting the way some of the people act on here, she'd be mortified, and I'd be mortified for her to see it.
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
I am with Stephen on this one.
I agree that about the lack of civility, etc. I think everyone needs to take a step back and ask themselves "what am I contributing here?" Every participant, Christopher included, has contributed their passion, beliefs, and thoughts on this forum.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
I wouldn't bet on it. And as for the personal attacks - I don't think that's what drove him away. In fact, I think it probably tickled him that people started calling him names. The reason I think that is because I've actually met the guy and I think he'd regard that as quite funny. He didn't even mind when people trashed his work, which is an indication that people don't regard his work as separate from the the man. He knows his work stands on it's own - that's one of the great things about good scientists. The trashing was indicating that his work is of no relevance to massage therapists. This actually made me laugh (even though I called someone out on it since they *thought* that they were discrediting him). It was the biggest indicator of the level of ignorance of some people on this site.
My opinion is that he left because he got tired of trying to explain the basics of why people harking back to the same ol' arguments ("You're not an authority", "A wolf being healed is proof that this works", "That study in some paper is totally flawed") are an indication that they have not learned some of the basic principles of science and research. Hec, even someone proclaiming to be involved in research is telling him that he needs to take on *his* view of what science is for (because apparently that guy *is* the authority ) and he needs to explain why some video of some wolf is a great way of showing that something he believes in *works the way he believes*.
He tried to teach the unteachable, but if some people were teachable, there would be a "I see your point" every once in a while and went about some civilized discussion - it would be some indication that people had actually been trying to educate themselves.
When a Psychologist has been driven nuts, it's really quite an achievement.
-
Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on
-
Hi Laura.
before to come to some practical conclusions for a future, we must to agree what discussion is about and how to make it
beneficial to all participants as well readers.I believe, If one denies something in discussions, one must to propose his opinion and views and not just distract discussions by criticizing,and claiming that scientific research cannot prove and explain phenomena,and especially if it is clinically proven .BTW.many drugs are developed through research and where a proved by FDA where recalled because of life-threatening side effects. I am a scientist, and do believe in science, and practicing methods developed through research, but also know that a lot of phenomenons proving some great results but cannot be explained. Should I reject it?every one of us has her/his own opinion on it.if you will revisit "Body cells carry emotional memories" then you will find that in the end I and Raven where involved in professional discussion that in my opinion allowed even to learn.
why not to focus on positive outcome of this discussion, that also proposing some norms in professional discussions?please correct me if I am wrong on this. Really why not to focus on positive site. I remember when you personally propose to moderate our discussions and even invited us for drink.Raven was ready for it, so was I.
only Christopher said to you if you don't like it don't read it.Laura in my opinion impossible to defend something that undefendable.Vlad cannot criticize nobody for being rude or something like this,because when I proposed my opinion
that meta-analysis have no importance if one not preparing research protocol, she or he(don't know the gender. No picture now last name is available) she/he called me" you piece of work".whoever Vlad is this person could contribute to our
discussions, by asking and even privately: Christopher, Boris asking and repeatedly your definitions.please answer"instead she or he fueled it by being rude person. This all on record. If I'm wrong correct me. Will be highly appreciated.I have nothing against Christopher, and if you want you or somebody else can try again to bring us together. No one forced him out.he did it because he decided and for his own reasons. His goodbye post is still on my discussion.he decide to do so. Am I wrong?I'm sorry but this self-inflicted wounds, and we shouldn't sit and cry on it. To feel sorry that this come out this way , yes, but not to cry, to blame,to feel guilty of something like this. instead let's try to learn what we can do different to avoid this.
My proposal is let's focus on my and Raven final discussion, and let's see if this is good enough to be a minimal standards for discussions.for fairness and benefits for all of us I expecting that you will reply on my post and exactly like you doing when applying :"message is in details"up front thank you.
Have a blessed day.
Boris
Laura Allen said:I have in fact personally come to Christopher's defense a few times, and I have also slammed the personal attacks that go on here. I've been on the road and not checking in as often but I assume that he must have left because of hostility??
That's a shame. And as far as people making the attacks, I know some of them too, and in person they are perfectly nice people who are just passionate about what they do. This method of conversing makes it easier for people to let it all hang out, so to speak, and that includes acting badly, which is unfortunate. As for MY mama, she taught me a few manners. Whatever happened to taking the high road, listening to other people's opinions and respecting their right to have them without a conversation deteriorating into some of the ridiculous crap that it has on here? If my mother saw me acting the way some of the people act on here, she'd be mortified, and I'd be mortified for her to see it.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
I guess I should jump in since it was my wolf video that has sparked much of the debate. To me, I felt Christopher was trying to quash all mention of energy (his list of 10) work. And still see him doing just that. The catalyst to me was when a new therapist, that just joined the site, threw out a question asking if anyone knew where to attend Reiki Classes in her area? His response to her was basically was "why waste your time?" It sparked off a debate that was far more uncivil than this thread.
Some admire Christopher's correcting everyone about their opinions concerning energy because they "feel or think" , instead of having documented proof. He expects them to use reseach to prove it. And his doing so would be fine if handled in a kinder way. If he wants not to be seen as an authority, he should stop acting as he is.
Can he offer? Can he suggest? Can he be kind? People usually treat folks how they are treated. My point is he isn't offering his research for us to review or comment about. We put up an article, a video or something else out and he attacks. Can he correct the input in a more positive manner? So far, it is not positive. And that's what I think Boris is saying about all negative from Christopher.
Energy work is something that massage therapists do. If a researcher wants to work in the massage therapy field, and then attack the beliefs that were instilled by instructors that were truly loved by the therapists, then expect what happens, with scientific research in hand or not.
I am with Stephen. Christopher has sworn off this site and discussions with people many, many times as can be reviewed and has always returned. I am sure it will happen again if he re-enters the discussions as he has so far. If he has something to offer upfront, it would help him tremendously to gain acceptance in the conversations. People may respond to his research, as those that have studied some of his work so far have, including Vlad and Ty. I think that would do a lot to raise therapists opinion of him. And settle the site as well.
-
-
Boris - you're skirting around the issue. Since you seem to know everything (about science and how it needs to be viewed, research, energy work and how a meta-analysis is of no use to any of us) even when it was pointed out that by editing that disaster of a thread (this was also hinted at by the site administer) a lot of the trouble could have been avoided on it, still you go back to some study in a newspaper and some video about a wolf, even though those topics were covered ages ago on different thread and they were pretty much beat to death. You and he disagreed then - it was hardly likely to turn into a fruitful exchange if you were adamant about bringing them up again, was it?
I apologize for my "piece of work" comment. It was uncalled for - but I reacted after you implied that his work was of no use to any of us. I should have remained cordial and objective in my input. You said you weren't going to communicate with me again, and that was fine. After someone slammed me and then continued to call me and others names I decided to not bother giving any input on that subject. "Who's gotta win" took over. "I've got 39 years experience and I know that clinical outcomes is all that matters" was hailed multiple times. I'm not sure if that was supposed to win everyone over, but it's no big deal if was intended to.
I have no need to put my real name on here and to be honest I don't want my clients seeing some of the discussions on here. I also don't need to see my picture and throw out "look at me I'm wonderful" all over the place. I'm able to put my ego aside and recognize my own ignorance on a lot of things from time to time - I don't count that as a bad thing.
As a sign that none of this is a big deal really, in the grand scheme of things. Here's something that really impresses the chicks:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20d_1304625572
-
-
Hi Vlad.
You wrote: I apologize for my "piece of work" comment. It was uncalled for - but I reacted after you implied that his work was of no use to any of us. I should have remained cordial and objective in my input. You said you weren't going to communicate with me again, and that was fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you apologized and I have no problem to continue to communicate with you and most likely to get best of it .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you said:Boris - you're skirting around the issue. Since you seem to know everything (about science and how it needs to be viewed, research, energy work and how a meta-analysis is of no use to any of us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe that no one knows everything about science and how it needs to be viewed, research, energy work. And certainly not me know everything, and never claimed it. Having said it I have acquired certain body of knowledge and happy to share what I know .in regards of my opinion on meta-analysis being useful for us and only if data of this analysis will be used only for research protocols preparation. This is my opinion, I'm in title for it, and see no reason why you did react so angry. If you had different opinion, you could say:” Boris I disagree with you”
meta-analysis is very useful for this, for other stuff, whatever. Instead you attacked me. If you will revisit discussion and especially our posts and will find different information than I presented then reffer us to it.BTW. You personally could contribute to the better discussion by cool down Christopher instead you did differently. All is on the record. In my opinion you too much attached to Christopher and in your eyes is perfect and therefore you cannot be objective and helpful for him. This is my opinion. And I am in title of it. Including that no one is perfect. But again let's not argue but let's try to come to some norms of debates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You said: still you go back to some study in a newspaper and some video about a wolf, even though those topics were covered ages ago on different thread and they were pretty much beat to death. You and he disagreed then - it was hardly likely to turn into a fruitful exchange if you were adamant about bringing them up again, was it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
on my end I really very much regret that all went this way . I really do. But in no way it have to be blamed on me mentioning sick wolf. I hope you will agree with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you said: After someone slammed me and then continued to call me and others names I decided to not bother giving any input on that subject. "Who's gotta win" took over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this is not correct and can be checked in a matter of click To discussion. I never slammed you and call you any names. If I'm wrong than direct me.Vlad, Discussion is not about:” "Who's gotta win" took over.” If you view it this way then change your view otherwise in my opinion and your discussion will be converted to unproductive arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You said "I've got 39 years experience and I know that clinical outcomes is all that matters" was hailed multiple times. I'm not sure if that was supposed to win everyone over, but it's no big deal if was intended to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
during the discussion I did mention my experiences but all what you wrote is taking out of context. If I'm wrong please direct me to my post but to my post where sentence conducted this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you wrote :I have no need to put my real name on here and to be honest I don't want my clients seeing some of the discussions on here. I also don't need to see my picture and throw out "look at me I'm wonderful" all over the place. I'm able to put my ego aside and recognize my own ignorance on a lot of things from time to time - I don't count that as a bad thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
absolutely agree with you on this didn't demand it. Just had no choice to mention it that readers will understand that I don't know how to call you she or he. This all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You wrote :As a sign that none of this is a big deal really, in the grand scheme of things. Here's something that really impresses the chicks:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sorry couldn't see it and don't know if this really relate to our discussion. If yes explain to me. If just for entertainment then you can leave it as it is.
Look Vlad it is unpleasant what is happened and I believe we all including Christopher have to do something that it will be not this way.
Best wishes.
Boris
Vlad said:
Boris - you're skirting around the issue. Since you seem to know everything (about science and how it needs to be viewed, research, energy work and how a meta-analysis is of no use to any of us) even when it was pointed out that by editing that disaster of a thread (this was also hinted at by the site administer) a lot of the trouble could have been avoided on it, still you go back to some study in a newspaper and some video about a wolf, even though those topics were covered ages ago on different thread and they were pretty much beat to death. You and he disagreed then - it was hardly likely to turn into a fruitful exchange if you were adamant about bringing them up again, was it?
I apologize for my "piece of work" comment. It was uncalled for - but I reacted after you implied that his work was of no use to any of us. I should have remained cordial and objective in my input. You said you weren't going to communicate with me again, and that was fine. After someone slammed me and then continued to call me and others names I decided to not bother giving any input on that subject. "Who's gotta win" took over. "I've got 39 years experience and I know that clinical outcomes is all that matters" was hailed multiple times. I'm not sure if that was supposed to win everyone over, but it's no big deal if was intended to.
I have no need to put my real name on here and to be honest I don't want my clients seeing some of the discussions on here. I also don't need to see my picture and throw out "look at me I'm wonderful" all over the place. I'm able to put my ego aside and recognize my own ignorance on a lot of things from time to time - I don't count that as a bad thing.
As a sign that none of this is a big deal really, in the grand scheme of things. Here's something that really impresses the chicks:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20d_1304625572
-
-
I believe that no one knows everything about science and how it needs to be viewed, research, energy work. And certainly not me know everything, and never claimed it.
Cool. I'm glad we can both agree that there is no authority when it comes to science. It's one of the greatest aspects of it in my opinion. I don't like to label myself a skeptic, but I do like Shermer's reference to the authority issue and other item's in the baloney list. (which I'm not looking for comment on - I'm just thinking that people might find it interesting)
meta-analysis is very useful for this, for other stuff, whatever. Instead you attacked me
I'm sorry that it seemed like an attack and it was impulsive of me to react that way. I should have said that I disagree, but when you said that grant money should not be given to such studies, it hit a nerve. I apologize if it seemed like an attack. The other reason it hit a nerve is that it seemed to be an attempt to discredit Chris' work. His meta-analysis is only part of what he does regarding massage therapy research and if people had viewed him as someone they could learn from (he has repeatedly said that he is not an expert on massage but he does know a lot about research methods) then maybe everything could have been different. I know that you know about the different methodologies, but I'd guess that most massage therapists do not. So, anyway, he's gone now, so having him as a resource for that is out of the picture anyway. But - apologies for the attack. I reacted too fast.
on my end I really very much regret that all went this way . I really do. But in no way it have to be blamed on me mentioning sick wolf. I hope you will agree with me.
Apricot and the New York times study have been given ample disk space. They've both jumped the shark - it gets a bit tiresome when the same old arguments kept coming up again and again. I think we can both agree that they should be put to rest.
I never slammed you and call you any names. If I'm wrong than direct me.Vlad, Discussion is not about:” "Who's gotta win" took over.”
My comment wasn't really directed at *you* per say. I was called something by someone and it was a bit of a slam, but since I'm not 12, I'm going to go on about it. And the "who's gotta win" wasn't necessarily directed at you either, but to me it seemed that the thread in question had turned into a contest. But it doesn't really matter now and it's all under the bridge.
sorry couldn't see it and don't know if this really relate to our discussion.
That video was meant as just a light-hearted entry and nothing else - just to change the tone.
I've had a long day at work and I'm a bit tired, but there is something I wanted your opinion on, Boris. Since you seem to value external validity and you think that a meta-analysis is a waste of grant money and I *think* you liked the wolf study because it took the human element out of the picture on the receiving end, what is your opinion on this study, which was funded by tax money (from NCCAM). I had asked what people thought of it before and no one an opinion on it, but since you've been involved in research - what's your assessment of it?
Thanks.
-
-
Mike,
I'm not going to into detail in replying to your post. But I'll just say it again - he's not an authority. No one should view him as an authority, but the way I view it most people didn't try to understand why he has come to the conclusions he has - but that's just an opinion and nothing else.
It's kind of like religious people slamming atheists. I've seen forums online about that topic and some of the threads here remind me of them. Defensiveness and lack of trying to see why people have come to some conclusions. I'm not an atheist, by the way, but I can understand why they don't have a belief and I respect them (unless they're trying to tell me that I'm an idiot for not having the same view they have - in which case they'd get told to go *%&$ themselves). The difference between the religious debates and the debates on here is that all of us in the field are affected by the selling of energy work and the claims surrounding it. But the debate has been pretty much hashed out. It looks like the majority of people on here are against being evidenced informed and that's a crying shame since energy work is only part of the issue and it's on the periphery. There's a great deal that we can learn from massage therapy research and the ability to critique research in general. If people aren't interested in learning about it, they're missing out. In fact, I was on scholar today learning some new info for a new client - the ability to find and critique has been the coolest thing since the invention of a face cradle for me personally in my practice, but apparently nobody else has much interest in it on here.
I think he liked to challenge - yeah. But I think that's his way of trying to get us to think.
As for commenting on his work? You gotta be kidding, right? Why couldn't someone, just one person have asked him about his studies (they're all there on his faculty page) Not one person ever did that. There *could* have been good discussions over the cool stuff he's working on with the ANS that he presented in Seattle, but it looks like people are only interested in arguing with him and not as a resource for learning. Oh well.....their loss.
You and he have a long history though. The Moyer-Hinkle wars have been going on a long time. You don't have to worry about him challenging anyone any more on here. He's had it with this site. He won't be back this time - I'm sure of it. I've said that I've bailed before and I've lied, but I don't think he's kidding.
Peace out.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
