Body Cells Carry Emotional Memory

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daniel Cohen on March 31, 2011 at 1:22pm

state dependent memory looks very interesting. It is a term I can relate to and I think clients can grasp.

This link seems to apply to the discussion. Do you have any links that refer this to massage? I think part of our problem is to understand terminology that we can use with clients living in a sound bite age while maintaining a semblance of accuracy. Therapists and Researchers use different ways of expressing but it doesn't need to be at odds with each other. I doubt I will ever give an answer to a client that is as long as a research study. But it is best to have terms and brief explanations that are proven by research. Of course it is still a matter of what the client is looking for. Some simply want to lie quietly, be massaged and ask no questions. We should be prepared as well as possible to meet the wide variety of expectation of our clients. I do not think it is necessary for a researcher to be an MT. In fact it may give more objectivity. Knowing about massage does help direct the information about what and how massage is done. I find studies that simply state massage was given without defining the massage very frustrating.

 

Thanks Laura for bringing the thread into a constructive tone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on March 31, 2011 at 7:38pm

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one. 

 To create a basis for a productive discussion, it would be great if you can inform this audience that has been asked repeatedly to contribute to organizations that fund research the following questions:

• can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results 
• how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?
• what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?

The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’.  I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing.  The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy.

In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped.

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience.  It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community.  Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course.

 

 

 

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 1, 2011 at 1:04am

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one.

 

It doesn't matter if they are open- or close-minded. If they do the work honestly, the process brings the facts to light, and the person's tendencies have nothing to do with it. Ernst Schroedinger famously said of quantum physics, "I don't like it, and I wish I had never had anything to do with it." You might say he is closed-minded, but it didn't matter--he was honest, and the process did the work.

 

You haven't shown any evidence that Chris is closed-minded, just your interpretation of what he writes. Given the way Chris and Bodhi are routinely vilified on this board, I don't think that asking you to stick to the facts and evidence instead of just throwing personal attacks is unreasonable at all. 

 

This is supposed to be a professional site, right? Professionals can disagree without being disagreeable. Show where Christopher is wrong on the facts, or else it's just petty bickering.

 

• "can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results "

Of course it can. I've said many times, on this forum and elsewhere, that I use the scientific method to keep myself, more than anyone, honest. As a human, of course I am subject to bias. That's why using methods that are as mind-independent as it is possible to be are crucial to minimize bias.

 

• "how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?"
  

To ask for a number is to oversimplify how science works. There is no magic threshold at which something is true or false. There is only an accumulation of results that trend in one direction or another. Or the more annoying case in which results are all over the map, and they don't point you in a particular direction.

 

And no, a meta-analysis is not ever going to reverse previous results. A meta-analysis is a summary of the most solid studies that have been performed on the subject, and will only reflect the results of those previous studies.

 

• "what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?"

I have never, ever denied that people say they receive relief with reiki. What I am saying is that the pseudoscientific and muddled explanations of "energy" that advocates of reiki provide cannot be the mechanism through which reiki works to the extent that it does, and the answer must lie somewhere else.

 

"The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’."

 

I think it is the challenge, and that it is the fault line along which the massage industry will eventually split. Practitioners who want to practice reiki but are willing to reject old explanations that don't work and to look at what's really going on will not be able to stay comfortably under the same professional umbrella with people who won't give up the energy explanation no matter how often it's been debunked.

 

"I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing."

 

Based on the discussions I've seen here, especially any in which Bodhi or Chris is attacked for evidence-based statements, I don't share your certainty.

 

"The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy."

 

People are teaching it in the here and now, without any evidence, and in spite of the harm it can do. And I misspoke--it's not the IT band, but the psoas. Whatever the structure, however, they are teaching people to make harmful assumptions on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That is the opposite of science.

 

I don't blame people for passing on in good faith bad information that they were taught. That is a perfectly natural and understandable thing to do. The real question is what they do after it is explained why the information is bad. Are they willing to take that into account and make a change, or are they determined to stick with the old information no matter what? 

 

Yes, science depends on trust, which is why the penalties for violating scientific ethics are taken so seriously. All of Korean biology has suffered the fallout from one guy's faked cloning results, for example.

 

"In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped."

 

Yes, I don't bother debunking every crank on the Internet with a perpetual-motion machine, either. Instead of just name-dropping, why don't you connect the dots for us about how he's solved the fact that if he's right, then every single thing we know about physics, chemistry, and biology is invalidated as a result.

 

When you can show us that he has really done that, then I will check him out. Otherwise, I have seen this movie a million times before--person makes grandiose claims, and then doesn't back them up: dodges direct questions, moves the goalposts, attacks the questioner.

 

The accumulated weight of the previous evidence indicates that he will turn out to be a waste of my time. Provide solid evidence that he is not, and I will go check him out.

 

"As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience."

 

Oh, he didn't practically call it pseudoscience, he did actually call it pseudoscience. She used to do good work; now she just speculates, and doesn't produce work for peer-review. It's a classic story.

 

"It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community."

 

Even if that's true--which I dispute, being involved with revolutionary work--the converse is not true: revolutionary ideas greeted with derision does not mean that if it is greeted with derision, that automatically makes it a revolutionary idea.

 

Also shorthanded among scientists as "They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the clown.".

 

"Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course."

 

Seeing how Bodhi and Chris are treated on this forum, I suspect I know who you consider not to be "the right people", much like Boris ordering Chris out of the discussion.

 

Fortunately for the rest of us, science is universal, and anyone can practice it. As much as you may want to control it by restricting it to "the right people", you cannot do so, and we're all better off for that fact.

 

Emmanuel Bistas said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one. 

 To create a basis for a productive discussion, it would be great if you can inform this audience that has been asked repeatedly to contribute to organizations that fund research the following questions:

• can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results 
• how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?
• what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?

The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’.  I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing.  The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy.

In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped.

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience.  It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community.  Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course.

 

 

 

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 1, 2011 at 1:16am

thank you, Ty--you made my day already! :)

Ty Capuano said:

"My job, rather, was to try to meet her where she was, and find a way to work on her that both she and I could ethically participate in".

 

Ravensara,

I just want to say Thank you for sharing in a very detailed manner your thoughts and experiences.  The sentence above made me nod in agreement as I believe as massage practitioners to meet our clients where they are without judgement and find a way to ethically work with them is the highest service we can offer.  It was lovely to see it written within your response. 

I believe memories are stored in the mind, but, some when remembered feel stored in the heart be they happy or sad.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 1, 2011 at 2:11am

"I believe memories are stored in the mind, but, some when remembered feel stored in the heart be they happy or sad."

 

I think you are exactly right that memories can feel as though they are stored in the heart or elsewhere.

 

One time I actually vividly felt my friend punch me in the gut. Only thing was, she hadn't actually done so.

 

She was telling me, with kindness and sadness, of the totally unexpected death of a mutual friend. And she had telephoned me to tell me.

 

Yet I felt a gut punch every bit as strong as if she had been present in the same room and had actually attacked me physically.

 

I guess that's an actual somatization experience I've had, come to think of it. I processed the info of the death in my central nervous system, but it was too much for me at that level, so I had to express it physically at some random location in order to deal with it, including depicting a good and sympathetic friend as a violent physical attacker.

Ty Capuano said:

"My job, rather, was to try to meet her where she was, and find a way to work on her that both she and I could ethically participate in".

 

Ravensara,

I just want to say Thank you for sharing in a very detailed manner your thoughts and experiences.  The sentence above made me nod in agreement as I believe as massage practitioners to meet our clients where they are without judgement and find a way to ethically work with them is the highest service we can offer.  It was lovely to see it written within your response. 

I believe memories are stored in the mind, but, some when remembered feel stored in the heart be they happy or sad.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on April 1, 2011 at 8:44am

speaking on  honesty Raven. You wrote huge "essays" not one but many, teaching/ explaining where emotions/ memories  stored, and that you personally witnessing this releases in treatment room,at at the time you did vigorously destruct discussions by all means, including asking me if at a time of providing massage I'm touching actually following is your exact word:” ." just to be crystal-clear, you don't insert a finger into any orifice, nor touch the anal sphincter, labia, clitoris, mons, scrotum, penis, or testes at all; is that correct? Just answer yes or no" shame on you Raven.I I do mean it.Nothing in your participation in this arguments was honest, because real discussion was around the phenomena of negative emotions storage in body, and stimulation by massage therapy as a methodology to release it .and look what you try to do if it. Simple saying this is  ugly .

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one.

 

It doesn't matter if they are open- or close-minded. If they do the work honestly, the process brings the facts to light, and the person's tendencies have nothing to do with it. Ernst Schroedinger famously said of quantum physics, "I don't like it, and I wish I had never had anything to do with it." You might say he is closed-minded, but it didn't matter--he was honest, and the process did the work.

 

You haven't shown any evidence that Chris is closed-minded, just your interpretation of what he writes. Given the way Chris and Bodhi are routinely vilified on this board, I don't think that asking you to stick to the facts and evidence instead of just throwing personal attacks is unreasonable at all. 

 

This is supposed to be a professional site, right? Professionals can disagree without being disagreeable. Show where Christopher is wrong on the facts, or else it's just petty bickering.

 

• "can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results "

Of course it can. I've said many times, on this forum and elsewhere, that I use the scientific method to keep myself, more than anyone, honest. As a human, of course I am subject to bias. That's why using methods that are as mind-independent as it is possible to be are crucial to minimize bias.

 

• "how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?"
  

To ask for a number is to oversimplify how science works. There is no magic threshold at which something is true or false. There is only an accumulation of results that trend in one direction or another. Or the more annoying case in which results are all over the map, and they don't point you in a particular direction.

 

And no, a meta-analysis is not ever going to reverse previous results. A meta-analysis is a summary of the most solid studies that have been performed on the subject, and will only reflect the results of those previous studies.

 

• "what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?"

I have never, ever denied that people say they receive relief with reiki. What I am saying is that the pseudoscientific and muddled explanations of "energy" that advocates of reiki provide cannot be the mechanism through which reiki works to the extent that it does, and the answer must lie somewhere else.

 

"The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’."

 

I think it is the challenge, and that it is the fault line along which the massage industry will eventually split. Practitioners who want to practice reiki but are willing to reject old explanations that don't work and to look at what's really going on will not be able to stay comfortably under the same professional umbrella with people who won't give up the energy explanation no matter how often it's been debunked.

 

"I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing."

 

Based on the discussions I've seen here, especially any in which Bodhi or Chris is attacked for evidence-based statements, I don't share your certainty.

 

"The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy."

 

People are teaching it in the here and now, without any evidence, and in spite of the harm it can do. And I misspoke--it's not the IT band, but the psoas. Whatever the structure, however, they are teaching people to make harmful assumptions on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That is the opposite of science.

 

I don't blame people for passing on in good faith bad information that they were taught. That is a perfectly natural and understandable thing to do. The real question is what they do after it is explained why the information is bad. Are they willing to take that into account and make a change, or are they determined to stick with the old information no matter what? 

 

Yes, science depends on trust, which is why the penalties for violating scientific ethics are taken so seriously. All of Korean biology has suffered the fallout from one guy's faked cloning results, for example.

 

"In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped."

 

Yes, I don't bother debunking every crank on the Internet with a perpetual-motion machine, either. Instead of just name-dropping, why don't you connect the dots for us about how he's solved the fact that if he's right, then every single thing we know about physics, chemistry, and biology is invalidated as a result.

 

When you can show us that he has really done that, then I will check him out. Otherwise, I have seen this movie a million times before--person makes grandiose claims, and then doesn't back them up: dodges direct questions, moves the goalposts, attacks the questioner.

 

The accumulated weight of the previous evidence indicates that he will turn out to be a waste of my time. Provide solid evidence that he is not, and I will go check him out.

 

"As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience."

 

Oh, he didn't practically call it pseudoscience, he did actually call it pseudoscience. She used to do good work; now she just speculates, and doesn't produce work for peer-review. It's a classic story.

 

"It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community."

 

Even if that's true--which I dispute, being involved with revolutionary work--the converse is not true: revolutionary ideas greeted with derision does not mean that if it is greeted with derision, that automatically makes it a revolutionary idea.

 

Also shorthanded among scientists as "They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the clown.".

 

"Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course."

 

Seeing how Bodhi and Chris are treated on this forum, I suspect I know who you consider not to be "the right people", much like Boris ordering Chris out of the discussion.

 

Fortunately for the rest of us, science is universal, and anyone can practice it. As much as you may want to control it by restricting it to "the right people", you cannot do so, and we're all better off for that fact.

 

Emmanuel Bistas said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one. 

 To create a basis for a productive discussion, it would be great if you can inform this audience that has been asked repeatedly to contribute to organizations that fund research the following questions:

• can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results 
• how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?
• what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?

The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’.  I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing.  The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy.

In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped.

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience.  It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community.  Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course.

 

 

 

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 1, 2011 at 9:03am

"speaking on  honesty Raven. You wrote huge "essays" not one but many, teaching/ explaining where emotions/ memories  stored, and that you personally witnessing this releases in treatment room,at at the time you did vigorously destruct discussions"

 

I don't understand what you mean by saying I destroyed discussions. I think we promoted a good deal of discussion and learning.

 

"by all means, including asking me if at a time of providing massage I'm touching actually following is your exact word:” ." just to be crystal-clear, you don't insert a finger into any orifice, nor touch the anal sphincter, labia, clitoris, mons, scrotum, penis, or testes at all; is that correct? Just answer yes or no""

 

Up to that point, you had never mentioned abdominal or visceral massage. You had mentioned the pelvic floor. I was asking for clarification, and when you provided it, I accepted your clarification, and never raised the topic again.

 

"shame on you Raven.I I do mean it.Nothing in your participation in this arguments was honest, because real discussion was around the phenomena of negative emotions storage in body, and stimulation by massage therapy as a methodology to release it .and look what you try to do if it. Simple saying this is  ugly ."

 

Perhaps I'm just one of the "wrong people", then.

 

But seriously, if asking questions and debating ideas is considered ugly and destructive, then what is the point of putting resources into research literacy and critical thinking?

 

--Raven

Boris Prilutsky said:

speaking on  honesty Raven. You wrote huge "essays" not one but many, teaching/ explaining where emotions/ memories  stored, and that you personally witnessing this releases in treatment room,at at the time you did vigorously destruct discussions by all means, including asking me if at a time of providing massage I'm touching actually following is your exact word:” ." just to be crystal-clear, you don't insert a finger into any orifice, nor touch the anal sphincter, labia, clitoris, mons, scrotum, penis, or testes at all; is that correct? Just answer yes or no" shame on you Raven.I I do mean it.Nothing in your participation in this arguments was honest, because real discussion was around the phenomena of negative emotions storage in body, and stimulation by massage therapy as a methodology to release it .and look what you try to do if it. Simple saying this is  ugly .

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one.

 

It doesn't matter if they are open- or close-minded. If they do the work honestly, the process brings the facts to light, and the person's tendencies have nothing to do with it. Ernst Schroedinger famously said of quantum physics, "I don't like it, and I wish I had never had anything to do with it." You might say he is closed-minded, but it didn't matter--he was honest, and the process did the work.

 

You haven't shown any evidence that Chris is closed-minded, just your interpretation of what he writes. Given the way Chris and Bodhi are routinely vilified on this board, I don't think that asking you to stick to the facts and evidence instead of just throwing personal attacks is unreasonable at all. 

 

This is supposed to be a professional site, right? Professionals can disagree without being disagreeable. Show where Christopher is wrong on the facts, or else it's just petty bickering.

 

• "can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results "

Of course it can. I've said many times, on this forum and elsewhere, that I use the scientific method to keep myself, more than anyone, honest. As a human, of course I am subject to bias. That's why using methods that are as mind-independent as it is possible to be are crucial to minimize bias.

 

• "how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?"
  

To ask for a number is to oversimplify how science works. There is no magic threshold at which something is true or false. There is only an accumulation of results that trend in one direction or another. Or the more annoying case in which results are all over the map, and they don't point you in a particular direction.

 

And no, a meta-analysis is not ever going to reverse previous results. A meta-analysis is a summary of the most solid studies that have been performed on the subject, and will only reflect the results of those previous studies.

 

• "what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?"

I have never, ever denied that people say they receive relief with reiki. What I am saying is that the pseudoscientific and muddled explanations of "energy" that advocates of reiki provide cannot be the mechanism through which reiki works to the extent that it does, and the answer must lie somewhere else.

 

"The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’."

 

I think it is the challenge, and that it is the fault line along which the massage industry will eventually split. Practitioners who want to practice reiki but are willing to reject old explanations that don't work and to look at what's really going on will not be able to stay comfortably under the same professional umbrella with people who won't give up the energy explanation no matter how often it's been debunked.

 

"I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing."

 

Based on the discussions I've seen here, especially any in which Bodhi or Chris is attacked for evidence-based statements, I don't share your certainty.

 

"The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy."

 

People are teaching it in the here and now, without any evidence, and in spite of the harm it can do. And I misspoke--it's not the IT band, but the psoas. Whatever the structure, however, they are teaching people to make harmful assumptions on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That is the opposite of science.

 

I don't blame people for passing on in good faith bad information that they were taught. That is a perfectly natural and understandable thing to do. The real question is what they do after it is explained why the information is bad. Are they willing to take that into account and make a change, or are they determined to stick with the old information no matter what? 

 

Yes, science depends on trust, which is why the penalties for violating scientific ethics are taken so seriously. All of Korean biology has suffered the fallout from one guy's faked cloning results, for example.

 

"In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped."

 

Yes, I don't bother debunking every crank on the Internet with a perpetual-motion machine, either. Instead of just name-dropping, why don't you connect the dots for us about how he's solved the fact that if he's right, then every single thing we know about physics, chemistry, and biology is invalidated as a result.

 

When you can show us that he has really done that, then I will check him out. Otherwise, I have seen this movie a million times before--person makes grandiose claims, and then doesn't back them up: dodges direct questions, moves the goalposts, attacks the questioner.

 

The accumulated weight of the previous evidence indicates that he will turn out to be a waste of my time. Provide solid evidence that he is not, and I will go check him out.

 

"As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience."

 

Oh, he didn't practically call it pseudoscience, he did actually call it pseudoscience. She used to do good work; now she just speculates, and doesn't produce work for peer-review. It's a classic story.

 

"It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community."

 

Even if that's true--which I dispute, being involved with revolutionary work--the converse is not true: revolutionary ideas greeted with derision does not mean that if it is greeted with derision, that automatically makes it a revolutionary idea.

 

Also shorthanded among scientists as "They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the clown.".

 

"Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course."

 

Seeing how Bodhi and Chris are treated on this forum, I suspect I know who you consider not to be "the right people", much like Boris ordering Chris out of the discussion.

 

Fortunately for the rest of us, science is universal, and anyone can practice it. As much as you may want to control it by restricting it to "the right people", you cannot do so, and we're all better off for that fact.

 

Emmanuel Bistas said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one. 

 To create a basis for a productive discussion, it would be great if you can inform this audience that has been asked repeatedly to contribute to organizations that fund research the following questions:

• can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results 
• how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?
• what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?

The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’.  I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing.  The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy.

In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped.

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience.  It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community.  Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course.

 

 

 

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on April 1, 2011 at 9:06am

Good morning  Emmanuel.

Raven  preaching

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx."

 

but acting absolutely opposite including many times to be  disrespectful (including insults) only to destruct the real topic of discussion. Maybe she biased,maybe she closed mind person,maybe this is her nature it doesn't make any different.

I hope her's intentional attempt to  destruct important  topic that we discussed didn't damaged to idea that I  had  when posted my two articles. Actually your  reply  to her giving hope that somehow practitioners smart enough to ignore it.actually in my opinion by offering this long.essay/lecturers she believe that she dealing with not enough Smart people. In discussions you do not do it. This is known you just do not do it. Exceptions when you write your own article.

Best wishes.

Boris

Emmanuel Bistas said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one. 

 To create a basis for a productive discussion, it would be great if you can inform this audience that has been asked repeatedly to contribute to organizations that fund research the following questions:

• can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results 
• how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?
• what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?

The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’.  I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing.  The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy.

In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped.

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience.  It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community.  Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course.

 

 

 

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on April 1, 2011 at 9:36am

Raven's response to Emmanuel's post is excellent, in my opinion.  I only take minor issue with one detail"

 

And no, a meta-analysis is not ever going to reverse previous results. A meta-analysis is a summary of the most solid studies that have been performed on the subject, and will only reflect the results of those previous studies.

 

This is not entirely true.  A meta-analysis can lead to new findings based on existing results, because a meta-analysis is an opportunity to correct errors that may have been made in original studies, and because the statistical power of a meta-analysis is much greater than that of individual studies.  These facts have been important several times now in massage therapy research.  To provide just a single example, meta-analyses (more than one now) clearly and objectively show that the effect of massage therapy on cortisol, an important stress hormone, is not nearly as strong as has often been claimed in individual studies and in narrative research reviews.

 

Concerning Emmanuel's assertion:

 

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.

 

This is a profound misunderstanding of how science works.  Pert, just like everyone else in science, has to have data and has to make that data available for inspection.  When she was doing cell biology, she had data, and that data was checked many times by other cell biologists.  Today, when she speculates on how emotions might work, she has no data and does not subject her theories to scientific criticism.

 

There are other examples of this, too, even among the very best scientists.  Linus Pauling was a Nobel Laureate in chemistry who later became an outspoken proponent of megadoses of Vitamin C, despite the fact that he had very little evidence that such megadoses were effective.  Subsequent research on this topic, performed by others, finds little value in megadoses of Vitamin C.

 

A nonscientific approach might conclude 'Linus Pauling is a great scientist, and he strongly endorses megadosing of Vitamin C, so that must be a good idea."

 

A scientific approach cares not a whit for who is making the assertion, and so the logic would be 'Linus Pauling endorses megadosing of Vitamin C, but what do his data say?  Does he have any data?  And if he does, has anyone else gotten the same results?  Can we check the results for ourselves?' 

 

In science, it doesn't matter who is making the claim and what his or her past history are.  All that matters are data.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 1, 2011 at 9:48am

"This is not entirely true.  A meta-analysis can lead to new findings based on existing results, because a meta-analysis is an opportunity to correct errors that may have been made in original studies, and because the statistical power of a meta-analysis is much greater than that of individual studies.  These facts have been important several times now in massage therapy research.  To provide just a single example, meta-analyses (more than one now) clearly and objectively show that the effect of massage therapy on cortisol, an important stress hormone, is not nearly as strong as has often been claimed in individual studies and in narrative research reviews."

 

Fair enough. I spoke sloppily, and I stand corrected.

 

Thank you, Chris.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Raven's response to Emmanuel's post is excellent, in my opinion.  I only take minor issue with one detail"

 

And no, a meta-analysis is not ever going to reverse previous results. A meta-analysis is a summary of the most solid studies that have been performed on the subject, and will only reflect the results of those previous studies.

 

This is not entirely true.  A meta-analysis can lead to new findings based on existing results, because a meta-analysis is an opportunity to correct errors that may have been made in original studies, and because the statistical power of a meta-analysis is much greater than that of individual studies.  These facts have been important several times now in massage therapy research.  To provide just a single example, meta-analyses (more than one now) clearly and objectively show that the effect of massage therapy on cortisol, an important stress hormone, is not nearly as strong as has often been claimed in individual studies and in narrative research reviews.

 

Concerning Emmanuel's assertion:

 

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.

 

This is a profound misunderstanding of how science works.  Pert, just like everyone else in science, has to have data and has to make that data available for inspection.  When she was doing cell biology, she had data, and that data was checked many times by other cell biologists.  Today, when she speculates on how emotions might work, she has no data and does not subject her theories to scientific criticism.

 

There are other examples of this, too, even among the very best scientists.  Linus Pauling was a Nobel Laureate in chemistry who later became an outspoken proponent of megadoses of Vitamin C, despite the fact that he had very little evidence that such megadoses were effective.  Subsequent research on this topic, performed by others, finds little value in megadoses of Vitamin C.

 

A nonscientific approach might conclude 'Linus Pauling is a great scientist, and he strongly endorses megadosing of Vitamin C, so that must be a good idea."

 

A scientific approach cares not a whit for who is making the assertion, and so the logic would be 'Linus Pauling endorses megadosing of Vitamin C, but what do his data say?  Does he have any data?  And if he does, has anyone else gotten the same results?  Can we check the results for ourselves?' 

 

In science, it doesn't matter who is making the claim and what his or her past history are.  All that matters are data.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 1, 2011 at 11:32am

"In discussions you do not do it. This is known you just do not do it. Exceptions when you write your own article."

 

Even when Steve specifically asked me for my experiences?

Boris Prilutsky said:

Good morning  Emmanuel.

Raven  preaching

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx."

 

but acting absolutely opposite including many times to be  disrespectful (including insults) only to destruct the real topic of discussion. Maybe she biased,maybe she closed mind person,maybe this is her nature it doesn't make any different.

I hope her's intentional attempt to  destruct important  topic that we discussed didn't damaged to idea that I  had  when posted my two articles. Actually your  reply  to her giving hope that somehow practitioners smart enough to ignore it.actually in my opinion by offering this long.essay/lecturers she believe that she dealing with not enough Smart people. In discussions you do not do it. This is known you just do not do it. Exceptions when you write your own article.

Best wishes.

Boris

Emmanuel Bistas said:

So, if I think that a researcher is closed-minded, it is because I do not like him?  It cannot be of what he has said on this forum? That’s a new one. 

 To create a basis for a productive discussion, it would be great if you can inform this audience that has been asked repeatedly to contribute to organizations that fund research the following questions:

• can a researcher’s bias affect his/her research and interpretation of the results 
• how many times does a study need to be replicated so that you can safely say, for example, that energy work or muscle memory does not work?  10 times? 20 times? 30 times? And is it possible that even multiple studies have shown something that a meta-analysis, the process of combining multiple previous research results can reverse prior results?
• what do you do when known theories are in conflict with the data presented by the research? If 100% of people who received reiki said they received relief with reiki, would you be willing to consider that something like reiki may work, or would you inclined to scrap it and attribute the results to something that is known to you?

The challenge that many face in these discussions is not ‘science vs. no science’.  I think it is a given for most of us that science and scientific research is a good thing.  The real challenge is not about whether iliotibial band syndrome is tied to sexual abuse – although even something like that could be studied - but whether those who conduct the scientific studies are objective and trust worthy.

In any case, both you and Christopher avoided addressing the fact that there may be others who may more open minded and unbiased who could be involved in massage therapy research.  I mentioned a name, which you also skipped.

As far as Candace Pert goes, it is a well documented fact that as soon as a scientist starts making suggestions that the mainstream finds difficult to believe, the individual is ostracized and made fun off.  We have seen it on this forum too, with Christopher practically calling her claims pseudoscience.  It should be worth noting that every revolutionary idea is greeted the same way Candace Pert and others are treated by the scientific community.  Although it does not mean that just because someone makes a claim that seems revolutionary that they are actually correct, research should be able to prove if they are actually correct.  Research in the hands of the right people, of course.

 

 

 

Ravensara wrote: 

If we could stick to discussing the issues, the facts, and the evidence, rather than resorting to personal insults against people whom you obviously don't like, that would be a very positive and helpful development, Emmanuel. Thx.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Jeffrey on April 1, 2011 at 12:05pm

Hi Raven

thanks for your reply, it makes for an interesting read and gives us an insight into your clinical experience with emotional release. 

Ravensara Travillian said:

 

 

Hi, Steve--

"how do you explain the mechanism by which these emotional releases take place ?I am asking for your personal exerience, please feel free to answere without the need to reference scientific articles. thanks steve"

 

My pleasure. I warn you in advance that it is going to be a long response; real explanations of the kind you asked for do take time.

 

I don't think there is only one mechanism by which emotional releases take place. As a systems thinker, I am well aware that a small perturbation in one part of the system can cause big changes elsewhere in the system--in this case, the event that did or did not happen, the person's memory of that event, the meaning they attach to the event, what their culture or faith or sex or other influences tell them are appropriate responses, personal factors such as high or low pain threshold, co-existing conditions, and others. Any of these can influence how emotional release takes place, and I would never say "the mechanism", as though there is only one.

 

So what I see in the session could have a number of explanations; claiming that I know enough to definitively tie it to one mechanism and one event would be too simplistic. Saying that you touch a single cell and release a memory--even if cells *had* nervous systems to contain memories--is a model too much like a vending machine, and I consider it a disservice to the client.

 

You have to take humans and their complexity into account in every therapeutic encounter. Even if I had enough knowledge about the person's biography to make a guess that Event A caused trauma to particular tissue Z number of thousands of generations ago (after which the tissue was, of course, replaced many thousands of times), I don't have any information about what else has happened or not happened to that tissue.

 

To try to develop a vending-machine model where you touch a tissue in a certain way, and it "dispenses" an emotion, is an approach that is doomed to failure--we're just too complex to oversimplify in that way. But you come across that kind of explanation every day: for example, someone was just telling me that they were taught in massage school that if the iliotibial band is tight, it means the person has probably experienced sexual abuse.

 

My response to that is you've got to have some really big brass ones, not only to make unwarranted (and possibly insulting*) assumptions like that about someone whose life story you don't know, but to ignore all the other possible causes of a tight iliotibial band, and then to multiply that misinformation through all the students you come into contact with, and by extension, to the clients they touch. 

 

[*of course, it is not insulting (at least technically, in this culture) to be the victim of a sexual attack: by definition, they are the victim, not to blame. But if someone has *not* been attacked, and you assert that you know they were, then you are insulting the people around the client, implying that at least one of them is a sexual predator. If you know that for a fact, it is right and good to act on it, which includes not covering it up. But if you don't know it, then it is wrong to spread misinformation like that. And, there are cultures and jurisdictions that thrive on victim-blaming. So this misinformation *can* be insulting to the victim in their culture as well, whether or not it actually should be as a principle of justice.]

 

Taking a mechanistic, vending-machine approach like that, where one symptom or technique always "dispenses" a particular result, is not going to provide knowledge. It's just rote learning. The correct response to any assertion is "how do you know what you claim to know? How would you tell if you were mistaken?".

 

Of course, I think you need to take a systems-based, evidence-informed approach.

 

Since I am stating that assertion, it is now my job to connect the dots and explain what I mean, rather than just pointing you to random Internet links. Besides, you asked for my experience, and I am always happy to talk about that.

 

As you know, the three "legs" of evidence-based practice are 1) the scientific evidence, 2) the practitioner's experience, and 3) the client's treatment preferences.

 

When I work with people who have experienced trauma, I draw on all three elements to approach treatment.

 

Scientific evidence:

 

From the evidence, I know that: 1) memories and sensations are processed in the brain, and can projected back to a certain place where we perceive them (like "phantom-limb syndrome); 2) human memory is unreliable anyway, just because of the structure and function of the brain, and PTSD can cause specific alterations to brain tissues that can have an effect on that tendency.

 

[I'll take a break from the list here, because I fully expect the name-calling to start up at this point (See Exhibit A: Emmanuel's description of Chris) above, and I'd like to keep us focused on the issues, rather than the personal attacks.]

 

What I am saying, and what I am not saying:

 

1) as humans embodied in tissue, we are all subject to that unreliability of memory to some effect, so we cannot know exactly what happened historically, especially when it's someone else.

 

I am *not* saying that people who have experienced trauma are specifically unreliable as a class; I am saying that people as a class have specific neuroanatomical and neurophysiological limitations that we can study in an evidence-based way, and take steps to work around those limitations.

 

More than anything, as a scientist, I use the scientific method to keep myself honest, because I too am subject to the same cognitive and logical traps as anyone. So I am not "blaming the victim" here in any way, and if anyone even starts with that kind of talk, I will not respond to insults.

 

2) I am not saying that we should ignore someone's report of what has happened to them, *only on the basis that human memory is unreliable*. If someone reports abuse, it should be investigated, bearing in mind that abusers often pick victims who are especially vulnerable because they cannot prove independently what happened. If someone starts with talk about how I am "enabling abusers" simply by recognizing that we all, as humans, have unreliable memories, again, I will not respond to insults.]

 

So the evidence tells me that I will never have enough knowledge about that person's biography to know exactly what happened to them when. It is, then, impossible, to touch one area of the body, get a reaction, and say, "oh, I know exactly what caused this". Fortunately, it doesn't matter--we are present in the here and now, and the focus of the therapeutic encounter is the patient.

 

If I can provide them what they need in the here and now, then I have done my job. They do not need a lecture about neurophysiology nor a detailed interrogation about their biography from me; they need my presence and attention. In the session, I don't need to know exactly what has happened to them, and it's good that I don't, because that's an impossible task. My job is to assess where they are today, however they may have arrived at that point, and meet them on their terms.

 

They also need the security of trusting that I know enough about what is going on that I can be trusted to do the right thing in case of an emotional outburst, or even a break with reality. My study of anatomy, psychology, and other evidence, and my confidence in being able to explain that evidence clearly and in a user-friendly way what I know, provides them that assurance.

 

Here is an example of unreliable memory in a client, and how it made not one iota of difference in how I treated her. I was working on a woman's head one day, and she broke down, traumatized. Through the interpreter, she described the violent car accident she had witnessed the day before. She related how she saw decapitated heads rolling through a major intersection in our city.

 

I was intrigued why our lurid local news media hadn't been all over that one, and checked first the news sites, and then the police reports. No such accident had taken place.

 

The next time I saw her, I did not say, "hey, I checked the facts, and you're wrong." That's not my job. I asked her how she was doing, and what she wanted me to work on today. She was much calmer that session than she had been the previous session.

My guess--and of course, I am just speculating; I do not claim to know this--is that, as a Cambodian of a certain age living in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, she probably has had plenty of experience seeing decapitated heads rolling around--just not in a car accident at a major Seattle intersection. Her process, whatever that means for her, is making her integrate what she witnessed in her old life with detail her new surroundings in Seattle. I don't have the training to help her in that process, nor to interpret it for her, and what I do have to offer does not depend on whether or not her memory is reliable.

 

However, as she was not the one being decapitated, she could not possibly have been storing "cellular memory" in her head. Clearly, massaging her head reminded her of versions of memories she carried (in her brain) of decapitated heads, and she felt safe enough to share those versions of memories with me. I would not confront her about her own personal process, but neither would I teach her process to students as a universal--just as one example of many possibilities for how people process trauma.

 

Another one of my clients was both a veteran and a refugee. He had been on the losing side of a civil war to keep his country together, but the rebels had prevailed and successfully broken away. A very calm man, he never once showed any sign of emotion. He just stated that half his body was missing, and no amount of evidence (photographs of him, x-rays, massaging the supposedly missing half and verifying that he felt my touch) could shake that conviction.

 

It wasn't so much an emotional breakdown as it was a break with reality. Along with the entire team, I did my best, but we were not able to help him reintegrate the "missing" part of his body. Of course, this is me speculating again, but I think he perceived losing the war as a personal failure that he was guilty of, and the missing part of his country as part of his body. We would never convince him that those parts were there, because as long as the country was divided, he could never get those body parts back. Again, this is all speculation, I am not trained in psychology, and I would *never* teach it as fact.

 

Practitioner (my) experience and judgment:

 

I have worked with people who have lost their entire families, or had their face blown off, and I have worked with wealthy hospital administrators who could bloody well afford to pay for their own damn massages, but choose, instead, to take slots intended for refugee patients and then spend the whole session complaining about how high heels hurt their feet. So I've seen very many different kinds of life experiences, and I can confidently say that the way that people express emotions does not necessarily correlate with the depth of loss that their life stories would indicate--a correlation that would be expected to underlie any purely mechanistic explanation.

 

I have had a client who lost his entire face to an explosion, and we did some mighty intense work preparing him for reconstructive surgery. That explosion cost him his life plans, his fiancée, and medical school, yet he never once complained nor had an emotional release. I do not, however, take that lack of obvious emotional release to mean that he didn't have deeply held emotions. All I take it to mean is that his process did not involve sharing it with me.

Some people, in my experience, more often wounded vets than refugees, want to brag about their injuries. I'll be massaging someone's back, and the client will start to lovingly describe exactly how every scar was gotten in battle or an IED explosion. I don't take this to mean that they do not have trauma; just that their process is working out the way they need it to. Sometimes the emotional response to trauma is to dial up the macho to 11.

 

And I have also seen, many times, the classic reaction described above of breaking into tears and shivering. People are diverse, and they react in very many different ways. Sometimes, it's the most unexpected people who break down--a bearded Hell's Angels biker vet in a leather jacket announcing "I'm the man your mother warned you about" suddenly beginning to sob like a newborn baby, for example. You just never can tell with certainty.

 

I have also worked with people from countries which do not have a tradition of talking freely about emotions. That, of course, does not mean the emotion goes away, but in a culture where "I'm sad" is an unacceptably self-centered expression of one's feelings, "my back hurts", or "my head hurts", or "my stomach hurts", is an acceptable way of expressing emotion. If they've spent their whole lives repressing emotions, they're not necessarily going to feel safe to take an opportunity to express them.

 

I don't agree with people who consider "somatization" to be a dirty word--people with strong emotional pain present with physical symptoms every day. It's just not the case, though, that where the physical symptom is located corresponds to the particular trauma. If a woman has constant blinding headaches here because she lost all her children in the old country, I don't think the forehead carries a mechanical version of the emotion to release. I think for this woman at this time with this emotional pain, somehow, a headache is the particular outlet for her grief in ways that I don't begin to understand.

 

A systems approach means that I don't have to directly link reactions of no emotion, strong emotion, or anywhere in between with particular events in the tissue that I don't have enough information about anyway. Whatever degree of trauma they are processing in whatever way they need to, and showing me whatever level of emotional release they feel safe doing for them (which can be influenced by sex, cultural origins, religion, personal response to stimuli, and other factors), and I don't need to know any more about it than that to do a good job in the therapeutic encounter.

 

Client preferences

 

I had another client, from a country where physicians are real authoritarian figures who tell their patients what to do, and expect them to obey unquestioningly. She lay curled up in a fetal position on my table. I asked her what she wanted, and she said "tell me what to do.". As I was only seeing her for a couple of short sessions, I did not feel it was my job to teach her to be more egalitarian, against the experiences of a lifetime in the short time we had together. My job, rather, was to try to meet her where she was, and find a way to work on her that both she and I could ethically participate in.

 

I did mention it to her psychologist afterward. I said that, as I had not known her previously, I could not tell whether her total passivity toward me was only her cultural training expressing itself, or whether in addition to that, she might be depressed as well. I got a colleague involved, in order to work for the safety and best interests of my client, since all by itself, it was unclear to me what the patient preference meant.

 

Another client, whose back I was working on without a translator present, as I spoke her language, began moaning in her language, "I want to die...I want to die...". Clearly an emotional release, but I did not know how serious it truly was--after all, in her language, people say things like "I'm so tired I want to die" on a routine basis. So up until she said that, there were four possibilities:

1. False negative: 1) she did want to die, and 2) she didn't say she wanted to. Risk: we miss the signs, and we only learn about it when she tries to kill herself.

 

2. True negative: 1) she did not want to die, and 2) she didn't say she wanted to. Risk: none out of the ordinary.

 

3. False positive: 1) she did not want to die, and 2) she did say she wanted to. Risk (worst-case): She gets committed for observation on a mental ward when she doesn't need it, with all of the medical and legal consequences that shake out of that.

 

4. True positive: 1) she did want to die, and she did say she wanted to. Risk: none. Benefit: potentially intervening before a suicide attempt.

 

She took 1 and 2 off the table the minute she said she wanted to die, so I had to evaluate whether the situation was 3 or 4. I don't speak her language enough to judge whether she was serious or not. I had to decide whether to alert the medical staff about it, or to take it as conversation.

 

I decided that I absolutely didn't know enough to tell what the situation was, and that I had to bring it to the attention of the medical staff. The worst-case risk was I would get someone committed who didn't need it. But if I just took it as an expression, and she really meant it, then I might have to live with her suicide on my conscience forever.

I told the staff, and I made sure to double-underline-emphasize-stress-reinforce-oh-and-did-I-mention that my command of the language was not expert, I was not from her culture, and I could very easily be totally wrong on this. They evaluated her, decided she was a real suicide risk, and committed her for observation. That has consequences. I hope the benefit from intervening outweighed any damage her record of commitment to a mental institution may have caused her.

 

Since I don't work at that clinic anymore, I don't know what eventually happened to her. I hope it all turned out well for her, but I have to be able to tolerate ambiguity about things I never will know.

 

Hope that helped, Steve. I'm glad to share my experiences with you and others. Anytime you want, I have tons more. :)

 

cheers,

 

Raven

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 22
• Next ›
• Page