Cross Country 43 - I am No. 9

[Barrett Dorko]

It’s been a quiet week in Cuyahoga Falls…

Cross Country Educators has come up with a new form for the students to fill out before the class starts. It asks, “What about the brochure enticed you to attend today?” Below there’s a list of nine so-called “enticements” that are to be ranked from one to nine. They include “topic,” “price,” “location” and “speaker.” That last one would be me.

Often the hour before class is my favorite of the day. The room is quiet, I’ve arranged my books and papers out on a table in the front of the conference room, I’ve my computer on and often see new insights from my friends here on Soma Simple show up. I get some coffee and first choice from the bakery tray. Early arrivals trail in and I watch them contemplate their position for the day. If this was a forest and the students were looking for a place in which to both effectively observe and hide, they wouldn’t be more careful. Being territorial and aware that everyone else is as well, they establish their space some distance from others and set up camp. Now I get to watch them fill out this form as well.

The class returned the forms before lunch. Right away I saw that half of them had ignored the instructions and just checked a few of the choices without indicating a preference. Somebody put a number “1” next to three of them and left the rest blank. I have no idea what he was trying to indicate. Of those completed properly, what I did understand was the number next to the word “speaker.” Over and over I saw 9,9,9,9,9, 9. Some enticement.

In his latest book Breaking The Spell modern day philosopher Daniel Dennett makes it clear that ideas of all sorts have held human beings enthralled longer than recorded history. In fact, we seek ideas and cannot seem to avoid their tendency to drive our behavior whether or not those actions are sensible or helpful to us. Often this desire for ideas to guide our behavior is far more powerful than we imagine. We’ll seek them out wherever they might be offered and pay no attention to any evidence that their source doesn’t have any interest in helping us.

By far the most popular enticement was the word “topic.” I shouldn’t have been surprised. I found out long ago that virtually no one investigates my background before coming to class. It’s the course title that drives them and, ultimately, their desire for any ideas I might have and offer. Whether these ideas are worth anything or not isn’t as important as you might guess. My experience has been that they no longer think much of their own ideas about managing pain and would like something - anything – else to hear about and imitate.

Of course, I think this way of pursuing knowledge is how we got into such a fix in the first place.

And ranking the teacher No. 9 out of 9 just doesn’t sound like such a good idea.

[EricM]

Thanks for this one Barrett. On the bright side, you weren't rated a 6, 6, 6!

Eric

[Barrett Dorko]

Eric,

Very funny. However, you might consider the post course eval. I always treat these as if they were a toxic substance for this very reason. Last year a "PTA with 8 years experience" (which, I guess, indicated she was an expert) said my course was "ridiculous and redundent."

I get the "ridiculous" part - though I'd like to know specifically which part that was; she didn't say - it's the word "redundent" that confuses me because it doesn't fit. I've decided she actually meant "repugnant" - and she was referring to me.

Now that makes sense.

[Tim]

Barrett, I may be one of the few who attended your course because of the instructor. I have a file of some of your essays as far back as 1985 (Adverse Mechanical Tension Within the CNS). Your thinking and your communication has always been very appealing to me. I like the scientic foundation behind the phenomena which so many pass-off as being ridiculous, wierd and thus ignorable.

Prior to taking your class, I would have rated your written communication to me as a 9. I don't know how the same writing communicated to others.

Your class communication to me was also a 9. House is also a 9 to me.
Maybe I hold that extra point that would make it a 10 for how the presenter makes me feel, which of course has nothing to do with why I showed-up or how much I learned and am willing to apply.:)

[Barrett Dorko]

Tim,

9 is good, right? As in 10 being the best? The survey for the class was inverted from this with 9 being the least important reason to attend.

Just want to make this clear.

[Diane]

Barrett, if you want a lower number/higher rating, write another book. Or just update/make a new edition of the old one. Use one of the easy breezy online publishing companies. Joy used www.iuniverse.com. and said it was remarkably easy, they did a huge amount including setting up the cover art, the books are printed/distributed as needed, forever, all for one low cost of about $500 US.

Of course, it would mean a higher profile and maybe even some unwelcome popularity. You might have to grow a thicker crust just to cope with all the recognition... :cool:

[Bas]

I think those evaluation-forms seem to bring out a feeling for the participants of rating the "popularity" factor of the speaker - NOT the material presented. "House" would not get a lot of high marks either in that context...
I have been rated from "effective" to "funny" to" tedious" to "too much information" to "not enough information" at some of my workshops - some times at the same one.
I don't get it.
And you shouldn't worry - you'll NEVER be popular! And that is a good sign at this time in our profession - look at the "popular" teachers....

Good for you.

[Jon Newman]

Maybe they were confused and meant 7 of 9.

[Barrett Dorko]

I feel compelled here to translate for Nari, but only because I've seen her confuse Star Trek with Star Wars on the boards before. Believe it or not.

7of 9 was my favorite character on Star Trek Voyager - but only because she saved the universe on a regular basis, not for any other reason. At least, that's my story.

[nari]

Barrett

Thanks for the translation - I needed it. I thought Star Trek and Star Wars were the same thing, only one a later version of the other.

You'd better believe this too; I take no notice of most programs which go to air on TV.
I do remember a machine called R2D2 and Mr Spock was a very attractive character indeed...but it doesn't go beyond that.

:)

Nari

[Diane]

She was my favorite as well.

Here is a picture of 7 of 9 when she was Borg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:7of9.jpg#file) Here she is, after she was re-humanized. (http://www.greenroom-press.com/clients/Paramount/home_ents/StarTrek_Voyager_Season7/images/7-of-9-still-jpeg-Ph.jpg) They were unable to remove every bit of the Borg enhancements from her, and she had to sleep standing up in a "regeneration chamber"; for some reason her human ankles never swelled from this perpetual lack of horizontality.

She had many emotional issues/conflicts to deal with when she was "revived" from the Borg colony or hive, where there were no "individuals." She was overwhelmed with culture shock and lonely without all the voices in her head, programming her every move and thought.

[Dave Vollmers]

Barrett -

I was directed to this little post from a few of the MFRers with some interesting comments. I think they are dead on with how you view the comments you recieve from from your participants. I remember from the MFR great conversation talking about how some of your participants are so enraged on how you conduct your classes with regards to negatively attacking John Barnes that they actually felt compeled to write to him. In reading these posts I think I can understand why you don't care or why you think you need to post these results (let alone slam a successful teacher) - you want everyone to take pitty on you because you use the mentality of a loser or a victum. Remember when you spend your career putting other professionals down this will guarantee your failure and these poor evaluations.

From what I understand one of the quotes from your students was "proving the work of others to be false is vertually a sacred rite" or they have even said "how inspiring" as they were laughing. I guess it doesn't matter that your students laugh behind your back - probably makes you feel better that you have more information to become the victum you want to be.

let's face it if you want to become a leader and have your seminars taken seriously you need to inspire and uplift others instead of hiding your personality defects and lack of character or integrity.

Dave and the MFRers

P.S. maybe this is why you only offer one class - you know most of your students wouldn't want to take anything else from you (of course you "claim" that one course is all it takes for them to understand your theroies)

[Synergy]

Dave,

I have yet to take the course that Barrett teaches but I (and many others) have learned quite a bit regarding ideomotor movement simply from reading his essays and this (and R.E.) discussion board. From what I've gathered, he hasn't personally attacked Mr. Barnes but rather what he teaches. How does this in any way translate into Barrett having a lack of character/integrity. How do you define integrity??? I'm not attempting to 'stick up' for Barrett as he does this quite well himself. It seems (to me anyway) from reading the MFR thread that the ones in the 'MFR camp' have no leg to stand on when it comes to simple physiology or the proposed mechanism of MFR's efficacy. Now I have to admit, I am by no means a neuronut like most of the posters here, but there are so many loopholes and exclusions found in the 'why' and 'how' of MFR that it's uninteresting to me. To exclude and not even entertain the idea that the CNS controls any and every contractile substance in the body and that the main 'culprit' is the fascia is well, umm...ignorant.

let's face it if you want to become a leader and have your seminars taken seriously you need to inspire and uplift others instead of hiding your personality defects and lack of character or integrity.
It sounds to me like you may want to take a course in leadership as you clearly do not understand what being a leader encompasses. Leaders are indeed suppose to inspire and uplift, but they also hold their ground...especially when it comes to choosing between well documented literature [read: ideomotor movement] versus pseudoscientific babble. Also, since when does being a 'leader' mean that everyone is suppose to like you?

Here's a quote I found in Wikipedia that seems relevant here (read closely and you may find the answer to what integrity related to science really means):

In the philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) some clear differentiators exist from either of the above modes, since science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) concerns itself not with authority or definition but with investigation. Scientists endow the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) with a certain base integrity, and deviance from it or shortcuts taken or people being accepted on their word may all reduce the perceived integrity of any results - in effect science operates on the basis of a very organized distrust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distrust), in contrast to the legal method which places a very organized trust in prior judgements and precedents. In fact, science consists in general of challenging, not upholding or verifying, prior dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma).

Good day! :)

[Barrett Dorko]

This just keeps getting better. Are you sure there aren't any others from the MFR community who would like to say a few things?

That quote about proving the work of others wrong being a sacred right? It's from Captured by Aliens by Joel Achenbach, a wonderful writer who carefully examines the nature of scientific thought, something you should consider. His book is also about alien life forms to some extent. You can probably skip over that part. I suspect you already know about that.

Today I'm carefully planning my next vile attack on John Barnes to be delivered next week in Ohio and Indiana, soon I'll deliver it again in Florida before I slither into the midwest where the therapists of Missouri and Arkansas will be aghast at what I say. I can't wait - and Dave, you can't stop me. (note for the unimaginative - I'm kidding here)

It shouldn't make much difference though; anybody can see that I'm just a loser with a victum's [sic] mentality just looking for pitty [sic].

[Bas]

Dave: "P.S. maybe this is why you only offer one class - you know most of your students wouldn't want to take anything else from you (of course you "claim" that one course is all it takes for them to understand your theroies)"

You have such a hard time even beginning to understand that something valuable does NOT have to cost a lot or take course time to learn. MFR was nothing more than swallowing without critique, what guru John fed us. No challenge to us to refute him, no challenge to find material to rebut the notion he presented. Take it as "gospel truth" (and truly so...) was the only option. Created docile and revering followers.....Becuase THAT is how you make them come back for more drivel for more $$$....

Now, I haven't even taken a course from Barrett, never met him face to face, yet, he has shared a shitload of material with the whole world for free. Not sweetly "guiding us" to "the light" (those clouds in John's flyer...), but gobsmacking me with scientific material.

BTW, Dave - I am still waiting for a response to Bernard's question about that "Quantum shift HAS occurred already" according to JB.

[christophb]

Why don't these other MFRers then post their opinions instead of relaying them through you? I attended a simple contact course in early February and there was no mention of Barnes. There was about 5 seconds of class devoted to directing them to "the great conversation" thread, that’s all. Most of the class aimed at why you should look to the nervous system and why use ideomotion.

Each person who enters a classroom has a different reason for being there and has different expectations/beliefs. The information presented will ruffle feathers of anyone sticking to irrational methods of practice... note I didn't say ruffle the feathers of MFRers. My first course in SC was shocking and I had to really think about what I do... it was hard. Was it Barrett's fault for pointing this out? I for one am glad someone is willing to do this, and in all my contact with him I highly doubt he feels the victim.

Barrett, Are responses like Dave's why you suggest reading the Irony chapter in Thomas Moore's "Dark Night's of the Soul"?

Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Chris,

It’s a chapter everyone should read, I think. There’s a passage about “catching the fever of the enemy” I like especially:

“Use your wits constantly in an effort to avoid becoming who they want you to be. There is always the temptation to take it all too literally and one-dimensionally, and become a mere victim. The loss of power through superficial victimization calls for a witty, ironical response. You can refuse to play victim, no matter how thick the layer of coercion that lies upon you.”

Everyone who introduces a new meme should read this, but recognizing the nature of subsequent criticism doesn’t excuse anyone from appropriately defending their theory.

[Dave Vollmers]

Chris -

From what I've gathered, he hasn't personally attacked Mr. Barnes but rather what he teaches.

I guess you haven't read any of the MFR threads or attended any of Barrett's classes prior to these thread (I suspect he is getting nervous now that the word is out)

The reason Walt, Scott and I got on this forum was to tell Barrett to stop his unethical, slanderous and libelous statements. For over 20 years Barrett has slandered well known authorities and teachers in the PT profession. Disagreeing with a concept is understandable, disparaging an individual is unethical.

This is the post from Scott (#465 on the MFR great discussion thread)
So, as I was saying, DISGUSTED by the completely unprofessional conduct of Mr Barrett Dorko..............

For all those who care only of the why and how of MFR - this post is irrelevant. This relates to the statements that Walt made in his opening post about "quit the negativity towards MFR and Barnes" - this is how the thread started, so please don't tell me I am off the point.

Dorko himself lead me to this material, and I tried to engage him in discussion of the ethics and manners of it by private e mail. He was very friendly as we e mailed back and forth over his poetry, but, after further reading, when I expressed my astonishment over how negative, inflammatory, disparaging I found his statements towards another physical therapist - ANY physical therapist - but in this case Barnes, so distasteful and pathetically small - well Barrett surprisingly wanted nothing to do with me. I didn't know the man, but this reading made me think of him as being very small minded!

So anyway - who cares about MY opinion! Huh, no-one, I get that.

So I connected with some old friends this weekend, who could pass a neutral opinion on the matter. A medical malpractice attorney in NY (one of the best according to his adversaries) educated me about "libel" - a word I wasn't all that familiar with. Well it turns out that the lawsuit brought against Dorko could potentially not have to waste a whole lot of time proving "slanderous" statements, or even defamation of character, but a "libel" lawsuit might just squish him into further insignificance. He wasn't really that concerned with the ethics violations of principle 11, but someone else was.........

The Director of General Counsel for the APTA, Mr Jack Bennett seemed to concur that this was a rather serious ethics violation by one PT against another (WHOEVER) was concerned, and wanted more specifics especially names.

Since I am merely an observer, I of course declined to provide these. I wouldn't want to get Dorko in trouble, as alarmed as I am at his "Bad manners". But I assure you all, Barnes most likely has a better attoney than my New York friend and no doubt he has a thick file on Dorko's misdoings, or rather missaying/ writings, whatever over many years! I think you had better HOPE Barnes doesn't tune into this!

When someone goes so low as to call another person a criminal - this is not only unethical, but now can be a significant legal problem with serious economic repercussions for such a lie.

Then there was the matter of Dottie:

On your own Soma Simple website you publish an Honor Code - the HON seal: "Health On the Net" code of conduct. Let me bring to your attention...

Principle 3- Confidentiality:

"Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to a medical/health Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site. The Web site owners undertake to honour or exceed the legal requirements of medical/health information privacy that apply in the country and state where the Web site and mirror sites are located."

Remember this when picking out patients like poor Dottie..... whom I still assume ... since Dorko avoided answering, that no-one got her permission to post her blog and critique it on your forum SomaSimple?

I wrote this to Dorko last week in private, but he avoided comment:
Perhaps some of you might like to "look inside" at what he has done and said, REGARDLESS of MFR / Barnes, I am talking about professionalism and ethics here.

Let me quote you from the APTA Code of Ethics, principle 11.3
Disparagement
"Physical Therapists shall not disparage colleagues and other health care professionals. See also section 9 and 2.4a"

Dictionary.com defines disparage as "To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle."

Having articles on your website such as "Not in Kansas Anymore", "No More Mr Nice Guy" etc are not only very poor taste for a PT professional/writer/educator but possibly a violation of ethics. And then you went ahead and tore into Carol Davis...a PT Director at the University of Miami ......... mmm, OK, let me stop there.

Interestingly - in another thread on your forum, named "Inappropriate or not" there has been mention by several posters - Nari, Luke Bernard about avoiding a "nasty or awkward" situation regarding mailigning another therapist. Seems others are conscious about this, I know I certainly try to be

Then there is the whole thing about you posting the patient's blog on the forum. Is this in tandem with ethics principle 1.1B ?
A PT shall be guided by concern for physical, psychological and socioeconomic welfare of all patients / clients.

I think not, but then again, that's just my opinion. Dorko, when you took Dottie's blog out of context (she only meant for patients to visit her site to help them) and by you, Dorko, putting it out there to the world in a purposely distorted form is hurtful and disrespectful to another human being. Dorko speaks from no experience, makes false accusations, and then distorts her experience to the world for his own petty purposes. While never mentioning that she had a very powerful and incredible result with MFR treatments.

This not only a serious violation of the APTA ethics code, but also a violation of your own honor code posted above.

Dorko has manipulated people for years, and he is manipulating the people in this forum. All of you take a step back and take a look at this behavior. Is this really something you wish to be associated with? If somebody made dishonest statements about you repeatedly in public for years , how would you feel?

Is it not bias, which is unscientific, to only look for the negative instead of being open to the possibility of something new?

MFR is an important, valid, and effective therapy that does no harm and has helped millions of people, and obviously it would be helpful for the scientific side of healthcare to help us better understand the mechanism of why MFR works so well consistently.... this is a work in progress, some of you have helped with this, here.

As therapists, is it not our responsibility to act and speak with integrity, honesty, and honor? There are many ways of helping people. Let us all continue to improve our skills, learn from each other and move to higher ground. I have nothing else to say except that I wish you well

Barrett has moved beyond unethical behavor into slander which is illegal and can be a very expensive lesson for Barrett if he continues.

Beyond years of disrespectful personal attacks of John Barnes, he has also been calling him a crimial. Recently Barrett tried to deny this claim but he lied. The MFR headquarters has many unsolicitated reports from therapists that have taken his seminars that state that he does call John a criminal.

The following was from a letter sent to the MFR headquarters in 2004

Dorko said: "John Barnes is a criminal, I repeat criminal"... I found Dorko's comments about Barnes cruel, false and unprofessional. I have found the techniques demonstrated by Barnes useful and effective...As I close this letter, I feel John Barnes should be aware of the slanderous comments being made about him by Barrett Dorko to the participants of his courses. If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me."

There must be a reason why Barrett has such a small practice, attracts so few people to his seminars, so unwilling to communicate with them on his website and recieve desproprotionatly high numbers of complaints about him. While MFR therapists are so successufl and highly respected use common sense.

Barret, trying to tear others down to make yourself feel important is a downward, low path to failure.

Get a life!

[EricM]

Dave, you will find butterflies and wheels (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/rhetoric.php) to be of tremendous value to in your future writing endevours.

My best,
Eric

[Barrett Dorko]

Calling me slanderous, libelous and "beyond unethical" is probably not your best move. Your claim includes Barnes as the injured party and he's never said a thing. Maybe he knows something you don't. You have also called me a liar and I don't take such a thing lightly. We should meet. I'll be back to Milwaukee before long.

You've never heard me speak yet whine a lot about my not having attended a Barnes course. See the irony? When you consider the public claims of love and devotion for Barnes from his followers you'd have to take anything said about those who disagree with his theory and criticize his practice by them into context. I guess this would be impossible for someone in your position, being as devoted as the rest.

No, I'm not "getting nervous" and thus curtailing my criticism and I've never said anything publicly about eliciting False Memory Syndrome that I would like to take back. To do so since the mid-90s is considered a criminal act by the courts and this is well documented. I have said that specifically many times and will continue to do so. It's nothing less than the truth. I suppose you'd prefer it wasn't but you lost that battle a decade ago. I'll leave it to others to decide what someone who knowingly does this actually is. I never personally call anyone else a criminal. What a devoted supplicant of Barnes hears and reports is not something I can control.

[Barrett Dorko]

I thought it would be useful for those unfamiliar with how one goes about eliciting a "memory" of abuse in childhood to read what Dave Vollmers wrote on the MFR chat a few weeks ago. Here he's advising another MFR practitioner how to "dialogue" with a patient:

"Once you are able to go deeper and verbalize what you are feeling the job of the therapist is to ask questions that help you to find the lesson you need
to learn. For example - based on what you said in your first post - some of
the questions that come to my mind are: How does it feel to express your
anger without directing it? What do you feel you need to do with that
(anger) emotion? Keep in mind the whole time a therapist is dialoguing
with you they are treating you so it is possible, but not definite, that
during the treatment you might find it necessary to "struggle against the
therapist" as if you were struggling against your brother. During the
struggle I might feel the need to encourage you to fight to get free, once
the fight was over I might say something like: "when you are ready say to
yourself - I'm free" or they can no longer hurt you - you are safe. These
are all possibilities of dialoguing - the truth is unless you were on my
table I don't know exactly what would happen."



Please remember that this is Dave's advice and Dave's words posted in a public place. Anyone reading "The Memory Wars" will recognize it for what it is and what it does and what it has been shown to lead to.

One word comes to mind as I read this: Ick.

[nari]

Another word or two comes to mind:

Why are PTs/OTs playing around with dangerous games and perceptions that are in an unknown, uncontrolled psychodrama?? I am well aware that OTs become involved with psychodrama; this is NOT the same.

Nari

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,

I'm confused. Did you not state that you were kicked off of the chat line? I know that Dave's post that you referred to was placed on the MFR chat line after you stated on 1/9/06:I got kicked off the chat line (Note past tense here)and banned because it finally occurred to somebody in charge that I was using quotes from the members to discuss Barnes' teaching and the nature of the workshops.(My bold face statement added.) So, how did you get this quote? Did you sign back up under an assumed name or e-mail address? This would seem to be in conflict with another post you made on the same MFR thread.I never posted anything on the MFR Chat. Occasionally a member would find something I’d written elsewhere and copy it to the list. Other members would then vilify me and wonder aloud who had done what to me in order to turn me into such an awful person. This went on for four years. I have never, never used a false name on the Internet and my personal rule is to not say anything to anybody I wouldn’t say in their presence.Never used a false name to post anything on the internet, but used a false name or e-mail address to gather and archive MFR Chatline responses? Just curious.

As for Dave's words being posted in a public place, I'm not sure if I agree with you, as, just like places on this site where one must be a member to view or post on certain threads, the MFR chat line requires one to become a member first. The terms and agreements that you would have been required to agree to, before you would be allowed to view any posts, include the following:

"User agrees not to use MFR-Talk to:...
m. collect or store personal data about other users;"

If you were a member, which is required to view anything on the MFR chat line, you were required to "accept these terms and conditions". (All taken from the MFR website). It seems to me that you collected and stored personal data about other users.

It seems that you may have a little explaining to do. By the way, my hat size is "large".

Walt

[bernard]

Walt,
Please, could you provide a link to the "MFR chat line"?

[Barrett Dorko]

Walt,

An increasingly concerned member of the MFR Chat sent me this post. They haven't given me their actual name but he/she explained to me that this doesn't contain any "personal" information - and of course it doesn't. Nice try though.

There are rules about who gets a hat and I'm afraid that on more than one occasion you've violated several of them.

No hat for you.

[Luke Rickards]

Hmm, very interesting stuff Dave. What were you saying about psychotherapy and PT??:(

[nari]

Somehow I don't think we'll get an answer, Luke. Dave may be picking out a bit of ammunition from his foot. ;)

Barrett
A comment on numbers /ratings....I think when figures go into the evaluation box for teacher rating, they mean:

Presented the material in a way that was easily understood;

or

Had tons of charisma, user-friendliness, treated everyone like a long lost friend and boosted their egos;

or

Wore unmatching socks.

By the way, I watched a bit of Star Wars last night. I think I sorted out that Mr Spock wasn't in it.....;) ;)

Nari