A report from Florida

[Barrett Dorko]

I’m seated in the gallery of the House of Delegates for the American Physical Therapy Association Annual Conference in Orlando Florida.

I thought that as I sat here I would write a bit about what’s going on because some the decisions made by this group arguably affect the practice of physical therapy in many places beyond this large room and I thought someone visiting Soma Simple today would be interested. I am also trying to maintain my sanity, such as it is, and I have the impression that writing helps me do that. I think. I’m almost sure.

When I arrived yesterday afternoon the House was nearing the end of a debate over the word “maintain” as opposed to “retain” as it was embedded in a document they were trying to vote upon. I asked several others there how long this had been going on and have gotten answers that range from “hours” to “about twenty minutes.” Given that, it appears that this room has become a kind of container for a time warp – and not everybody is experiencing it in the same way. This impression was further strengthened by a couple of other therapists saying that this House “sounds exactly as it did twenty years ago.” I can tell you that’s how I experienced it. I haven’t decided yet whether or not this is fascinating or just creepy.

Soon after my arrival yesterday Stan Paris bought me a cup of coffee, which I thought was nice of him. He spoke to me of possibly organizing a reunion of the original staff of The Atlanta Back Clinic next year at The University of Saint Augustine (http://www.usa.edu/). This sounded good to me and I’m wondering if such a thing might one day form another thread here. By the way, this group was organized during the disco era, just to give you some cultural reference.

Stan - possibly the world’s best-known physical therapist - looks and sounds remarkably as he did when I first met him in ’74. Tomorrow he’ll deliver the McMillan Lecture, the APTA's highest honor, and he certainly deserves this. I have the sense that he will say many of the same things he said when I first tried to hide in his class in Montreal, but that’s okay. Some people have the ability to say things repeatedly and, amazingly, fascinate us with them nonetheless. Stan can do this, I know. It occurs to me that Henny Youngman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Youngman) had the same skill.

I wonder what that means.

More later.

[gerry]

Barrett,

I always look forward to your reporting of the conference. Please continue with the reports. If it also helps with your sanity, great! Whether I am attending or not, I appreciate your insights and perspective.

I've had a couple of opportunities to meet Stanley Paris. Once at an IFOMPT meeting in Colorado, and once at a pediatric manual therapy course. Both very interesting events for me.

Good Luck there in Orlando!

[Barrett Dorko]

Thanks Gerry. Here's what came out at breakfast today:

I sat through the end of the House yesterday and heard a lot of discussion about the use of the title “Doctor” should we have a doctorate of some sort as well as the problems inherent to the “grandfathering” of people like myself who won’t ever go to college again without a gun to our heads. Someone suggested we all “board the train toward the DPT at our convenience.” Apparently, this is a “doctoring” profession now. I’m unfamiliar with this term but it sounds both vague and awkward. For me the bottom line is this: If you ever hear me insisting that people refer to me as “Doctor,” please shoot me immediately. I promise that my family will understand.

The elephant in the room is the nature of common practice – most often done by the tens of thousands of therapists who aren’t even aware that this convention is currently taking place. They’re not represented here, and the situation as it exists today dictates that they never will be. In fact, they never can be.

More later.

[Diane]

The 'evolution' -ary path of the PT profession reminds me of the evolutionary path (viewed as cautionary fable) taken by the sabre-toothed tiger - finally its teeth weighed so much that it couldn't lift up its head and went extinct. OK, I'm exaggerating a bit for effect.. that's not how it went extinct. It was hunted to extinction by our own species. What is interesting is the name, "smilodon" (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/smilodon/). I love it. There's something 'abductive' about this name and PTs.. there's a connection buried in there somewhere, I'm quite sure. Or maybe it's just coincidence that I almost got turfed from PT school for not smiling (subserviance display) at clinical superiors hard enough. And I love that it could open its mouth to 120 degrees, far larger than other jawed mammals.. wide as a snake can almost, another tooth 'inserter' sort of creature.

[Luke Rickards]

I know how you feel Barrett. In the state I have moved to osteopaths may use the title Dr, and the clinic I work in takes advantage of it.

Every time a patient calls me Dr Rickards I turn red with embarrassment, and then quickly correct them.

Luke

[nari]

It is widespread here - all vets, dentists, chiros, osteos call themselves Dr, and I don't think they all have PhDs....

Most PTs think it rather ludicrous, but are not fussed by the fact they are not part of the inDOCtrination. They have better things to worry about.

More, please, Barrett...

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

This afternoon I attended the Mary McMillan lecture delivered by Stanley Paris. I have to tell you, I’m not easily impressed and I have acquired over the decades a rock-hard cynicism regarding the nature of physical therapy as I’ve seen it practiced, but had you been beside me at today’s speech you have seen none of that in my face or demeanor.

Only Stan could have gotten that out of me.

I introduce myself to my classes by noting my profound connection to this man beginning in ’74 in Montreal when I decided I would do whatever it took to teach what he taught and to treat patients beside him – and that all worked out for me. But my personal experience of the world and the clinic compelled me to leave that life after a few years and strike out on my own. Alone is the way I remain today. Still, for all the ways I found that we were different – and there are many – I’ve always sensed that Stan and I were connected by a common thread that would never be severed completely. Today I could see quite clearly that it hasn’t been. I also have the feeling that Stan’s unique genius lies in his unflinching and clear view of the future. That is something I simply don’t have.

Stanley is the only therapist I’ve ever met who could convince you that he’d somehow scouted ahead and he was now returning to tell us all what was out there. Not only could he see into the future, he knew how to guide us safely there and prepare us for what was beyond - and so we follow. Fortunately, Stan was born to lead, and in our profession such people are quite rare. Among those few, Stan Paris has always managed to separate himself even a little further ahead by shear force of will. There’s just no other way to put it.

I sat in the center of the auditorium and just shook my head at the quality of his delivery; its pace and articulation like nothing you’ll ever see, and, as I said yesterday, the amazing ability to tell old stories (and there were many) as if they were brand new. I might personally aspire to this, but I doubt I’ll ever get there.

I told myself I wouldn’t laugh, and I laughed anyway. But far beyond that, I was inspired about something I long ago despaired of.

I just wish it would last.

[Diane]

But where will PT be led by Stan besides into a hybrid doctor type with chiros who want to escape the idiocy of their own profession? No one is moving very far away from the mesoderm, it seems to me. I will never/could never follow a siren call from him.. or anyone.

[nari]

I don't know anything about Paris; a long search revealed nothing about what his clinical thoughts are, so I cannot comment either way. Is there a site which reveals something about him?
What I did gather from the search are his orthopaedic credentials and I have to agree with Diane that this would not be an ideal focus for the future of the profession.
Maybe I'm biased...

Nari

[EricM]

“Always two there are, a master and an apprentice.”

Yoda

[Jon Newman]

I'll look forward to at least reading the lecture if they should decide to publish it in the PT journal as they have in the past.

Which reminds me, I need to renew.

[Luke Rickards]

Jon, can let us know if they do.

Luke

[Jon Newman]

Hi Luke,

In fact I can and will.

[Barrett Dorko]

I'm not sure I conveyed this: It's not what Stan said that is important, nor is it what he says about what our future should be or will be - it is simply that he says it in a way I find irresistably compelling, if only fleetingly.

This is no small thing, and given what I know about the neurobiologic revolution and what it should have meant to common practice, I can't help but conclude that we as a group lack something that Paris has in abundance.

Whatever that is, PTs love it.

Even me, for a while.

Below: Jason Silvernail and I met for the first time at breakfast on Wednesday and I found we spoke with each other as if old friends. To me, this site's ability to lead to such a thing is amazing. Here we are at the booth manned by the US Army.

[Diane]

He must have a way of schmoozing the mirror neurons. Maybe it's the accent. Maybe he is a magician.
Stan I mean, not Jason. Hi Jason, nice to "see" you. :teeth:

[bernard]

Hi All,
Barrett asked that I add a little comment and a picture in his last post.
The first picture of Jason! :thumbs_up

[nari]

Barrett,

I take your point - whatever Paris has, we should all try to have it. Can you and Jason get infected and bring back the gist of his tenor?

Nari

PS: Liked the photo.

[Randy Dixon]

Jason doesn't quite look like I imagined him, he's taller and not as boyish looking as I imagined. I don't know why I thought a major, or is it still captain, in the Army would be boyish. He doesn't look like a veggie eater either. It's nice to put a face with a name though.

I've met Stan Paris a couple of times, my wife has had courses from him and I had a couple of short private conversations with him. He has a sort of Marcus Welby quality to him, though that is probably not a good comparison, but he has the ability to make you feel, it's ok, I know what the problem is and I know what to do about it.

[Diane]

So, Stan Paris has a therapeutic quality to him that extends out past a patient relationship and affects the entire profession with its memes, and everyone wants a bit of it and wishes he could bottle and sell it. He can't so instead he exudes it as he dreams out loud about his vision for the profession. It acts like a pheromone, and people simply cave to his idea of the future of the profession. That's what I'm getting from this.

(Stan, if you are reading this, please realize I'm just trying to get a fix on the thread, not be impertinent toward you... I sat in a workshop decades ago, palpating your elbow and you mine, across a small table, and I swear I didn't feel anything of what it sounds like you are capable of eliciting in people.)

[bernard]

Barrett and Stanley Paris after the McMillan Lecture

[Diane]

Maybe Stan's magical quality is his ability to appeal to American PT desperation.

Another NZ PT, Charlotte Burns, is the one who waved her magic wand here in BC and set us free, 15 years ago. Actually we had been free all along, or at least there had been freedom for the manipulators all along. What she did, was say (when volunteer head of the PABC), this voluntary servitude to physician referrals doesn't make sense; let's toss out this bit of our act where we are putting ourselves into two categories. Let's all be in the same direct access category, as there is no difference in the quality of basic training. And lo, it happened.

In NZ, there has been freedom for PT for so long these PTs who immigrated from there just don't get why it isn't the same for PT everywhere. Maybe that's their magic. They are savior figures. They figure out ways to bend, or get around the "rules" because the rules make no sense.. they are abductive at a strategic level for the improvement of the whole profession.

[OaksPT]

Diane,
I don't think the masses of PT's in America are desperate, only those who aren't aware that they need to be, or don't care. Take your pick.
Scott

[Barrett Dorko]

Last night I attended the Foundation for Physical Therapy Dinner/Auction/Dance. In the past this has always proven to be a difficult evening for me but I did okay here in Orlando. Having registered too late to be assigned a seat at a specific table, I was told to choose an empty chair at a couple of tables at the edge of the dance floor reserved for loser…uh, I mean late arrivals without any specific affiliation to the many groups that often arrive in formation.

This year’s event was dedicated to the memory of Florence Kendall so there was a slide show containing many images of her amazing smile throughout the cocktail hour and again after dinner. The screen was about 30 feet high and situated directly above my table. The last one to find a seat, I was facing the photos directly.

So that was nice.

There was a video produced by the students from Marquette detailing their participation in Foundation fund raising. Twice during the course of this John Childs was featured speaking a few words about the importance of research and they actually showed him teaching some undergrads how to manipulate a patient's lumbar region. Like I said, this part was shown twice during the video.

So that was nice.

More happened than this. There must have been more. After all, I said I had a good time.

But I’m about to board the plane home so I’ll save the rest for later.

[Mike Terrell]

I'm sure some of the participants on this forum have seen this already, but Barrett's comments re: Stan Paris made me think of them.

Dr. Nikolai Bogduk gave an address at an international spine conference. Part of his address focused on the 5 C's:

Charisma
Confidence
Convincing
Care
Compassion

In Dr. Bogduk's opinion, a practioner who displayed these characteristics would be more successful than one who did not display them as fully. This made me think of some of the more successful/well known PTs I have met, specifically Shirley Sahrmann and Gary Gray. Both are all 5. Many of my professors in school whom I respect as clinicians also would display all 5 qualities. Not to say that knowledge, technique, or skill is unimportant, but I think most would agree that a practioner's demeanor is vital.

Barrett,

How does Stan rate?

mike t

[nari]

Bogduk is probably right; but it does not follow that all PTs are taken in by charisma - it puts some right off; and the rest of the Cs are not dependent on charisma... or shouldn't be. Someone who drones away in a monotone and doesn't attend to the audience doesn't win brownies either.
There is a middle road....somewhere. A teasoonful of sugar would do, no more.

Nari

[Diane]

Charisma
Confidence
Convincing
Care
Compassion

In Dr. Bogduk's opinion, a practioner who displayed these characteristics would be more successful than one who did not display them as fully. This made me think of some of the more successful/well known PTs I have met

OK.. I think we are talking two different things here. Is Bogduk talking about a practitioner who treats patients or a PT who loves being up in front of crowds of people with a vision for the profession?

I've met both types. I've been one kind but never the other, having no taste whatsoever for public speaking. Some people, the ones with charisma I suppose, love to be in the spotlight. I don't.. does that make me an unsuccessful practitioner? I can dredge up just enough charisma one-on-one to get me through the day... of course that's all I have ever been interested in. Somehow I always thought it was more about getting good results than about being charismatic; I suppose patients could be convinced they feel better, but that's always seemed a bit fudgy to me. I've always tried to connect with patients, but not to dazzle or "sell" them, just to get them to understand a train of thought long enough to get better. Some PTs (the extroverts) see no difference between preaching/teaching to patients one by one or an auditorium full of peers.. does that make them more "successful" or just more recognizable? Aren't they just following what they themselves feel self-rewarded by doing? Don't they feel a bit invisible or something if all eyes are not focused on them?

I'm reminded somehow of the assertion that someone who doesn't practice high velocity manip is practicing suboptimally. I'm hearing Bogduk saying someone who doesn't demonstrate charisma sufficient to publically sway crowds is nonsuccessful. Scuse me but I think he is looking at things through male filters.

[Randy Dixon]

Diane,

I think you are mostly just showing us the colors of your own filters. You seem to feel the word "charisma" must mean a glad handing, egocentric, spotlight loving, attention hound. It can, and does, mean different things to different people and in different contexts. In my mind it is always a positive trait, because if I find the person overbearing or however it is you are defining it, they don't have charisma, they are just overbearing.

and the fact that the first definition is positive trait is a result of "male filters"?

[nari]

Randy,

As I agree with Diane in principle, here is my version of useless 'charisma':
Someone who flatters others; smiles a good deal; talks a lot more than the audience does; may be scared of silence pauses during talking; confidence oozing all over the floor; trendy clothes....

Maybe that's wrong, but it is my perception of many spruikers I have listened to over 20 years. Very few ever met my standard of thinking: Now that's a good, honest bloke/woman, no pretensions, fluent, freely admits he or she is wrong often and what he/she says is understandable, logical and without mystique. And, as I result, I actually learned a lot.

Nari

[Diane]

Nari, what's a spruiker?
Randy, I'm looking at it as a troop dominance behavior.. it's the alpha male thing.

[nari]

Must be an Oz term. A spruiker is someone who gets up and talks to an audience with the aim of changing their beliefs. Could be anyone from a guru PT to a politician to a scientist to an evangelist. An Oz egalitarian expression, maybe.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

This thread has taken an interesting turn - not that I mind.

I will begin by saying that I really, really don't care for Bogduk's list or what he says. I am always suspicious of alliterative lists because they almost always include terms that don't fit in any way other than their first letter. This list is a good example, especially because the word "charisma" is in there.

Charisma has long fascinated me, perhaps because of the fact that though I can appreciate its worth, I've never been able to project it. You've either "got" this or you don't, and, clearly, I don't. Let's forget Stan for a moment and talk about Earnest Angely. Reverend Angely is a world famous televangelist and faith healer who is headquartered eight blocks from my office here in Cuyahoga Falls. Google his name and you'll find out more about him than you ever wanted to know. Few would argue that he is an unattractive man with irritating, quirky mannerisms and a grating voice. His verbal delivery is stilted and punctuated with awkward pauses. But in his own way, Angely is fabulously successful and influential - and this success seems to rest entirely upon his charisma.

Angely is proof positive that charisma, whatever it might be, is not dependent upon appearance, fancy speech, talent or even the message you've chosen to impart. These things may help you influence others as you wish, but none form the essence of charisma as I've seen it. This quality transcends all of that and will be enough to turn the crowd your way all by itself. The rest is window dressing. I've always imagined that charismatic individuals sort of wonder what's the matter with the rest of us. I think that, at least unconsciously, they have to regularly decide whether or not they will use this power for good or evil - and then they have to decide what is evil. It must be exhausting. If they're sociopathic by nature, and plenty are, everyone around them is in trouble. I know Stanley Paris isn't an uncaring individual and I've witnessed numerous selfless deeds in his presence. On the other hand, I've never met anyone so sure of the "rightness" (for lack of a better word) of his goals. I know that getting out of his way is sometimes the best course for others.

When it comes to successful management of patients, which is what Bogduk is talking about to some extent, I have always felt that the depth of your understanding is the key, and that's something you can't fake - the rest of his stuff you can feign quite easily for brief periods, and I would know. Confidence, conviction, care and compassion are well-conveyed in the single quality of charm, which is something we can all learn to be by just watching others who get what they want by using it. To me, the amount of charm used by anyone has an inverse relationship to their authenticity, and here the issue of personality enters in. Stan is charismatic and I am not. Stan can be charming to a degree that certainly surpasses my own but you'd never describe either of us as obsequious. Perhaps this is where we meet - we're charming but only up to a point, and I reach my limit earlier. When Stan reaches his he still has his vast storehouse of charisma to draw upon. I got nothin'.

An interesting note: During our conversation in the bar early in the week I had the chance to speak of my lack of empathy inherent to the Asperger's Syndrome (http://www.barrettdorko.com/articles/with_death_comes_food.htm) that pervades the male Dorkos in my generation. He listened quietly and then said, "So how is it you're so good with patients?"

The answer was too long to give, but I certainly enjoyed his asking the question.

[nari]

Barrett,

I guess we all have some charismatic factor to our presentation, some of it negative as well as very postive.

Of the very few 'charismatic' PTs whom I have listened to in lectures over 20 years, you certainly met my standard of how a good lecturer/speaker is defined, as described in my reponse to Randy. For what that is worth, perhaps the combination of positive effects is difficult to define; and as Randy stated, a measure of one's own subjective filters.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Nari,

Not to split hairs, I think there's a difference between being a good speaker and projecting charisma. I know I'm a good speaker, but I think that one day Ramachandran will use some fMRI to demonstrate precisely which part of our brain lights up when in the presence of a charismatic individual. I'm not going to light up many others and Stan or Earnest will.

I don't think "negative" charisma acually exists, but I would agree that the written word itself can convey this quality. I've seen several astoundingly successful authors display this though in person there's not much there.

[nari]

Barrett,

Haven't you ever listened to someone in the room whose presentation was dull, repetitive monotone in nature, a lecture rather than a talk...and yet, despite the total absence of 'charisma', and inward groans at the style, the actual content was excellent and memorable?
It turns out to be a learning experience, despite the soporific torrent of words.
If there had been a smidgen of understanding of group dynamics, or a pause or four, or a terrible joke put in as well...it would have been better, of course.

That is what I meant by negative charisma. Charisma is not always a requirement for useful learning....;) although I will concede a bit of it helps.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Nari,

I see what you're saying, but I think that charisma influences more than it teaches. Wonderful material placed in our laps might not teach us a thing if we aren't ready for it or if our attitude toward the subject and/or presenter is of a certain sort. A charismatic person overcomes the attitude of others and impresses them to such a degree that they find themselves agreeing with statements they would ordinarily carefully question.

Again, I don't think charisma depends upon teaching or interpersonal skills. Of course, that doesn't mean I know what it does depend upon.

Maybe the main problem with my workshop material is that the therapy community isn't ready for it.

[nari]

Barrett

Maybe the main problem with my workshop material is that the therapy community isn't ready for it.

I think this is the root of the problem; if it doesn't focus just on the mesodermal structures....then the overwhelming proportion of the therapy community won't trust it. Therapy = doing many things to people.

I am going back to work for a short contract in the pain clinic soon and am looking forward to using SC. Of course I am reckoning that I will get fantastic results; and keep reminding myself five seconds later that I may be too optimistic, and to play it cool.

Nari

[Mike Terrell]

When a patient walks into a PT clinic with a pain problem they are having difficulty understanding and that has been nominally diagnosed, a PT who is able to demonstrate the 5 C's (genuinely or not) will, typically, be able to convince the pt. that they have the answer, irregardless of what that answer may be (MFR, HV manip, stabilization exer., postural correction, etc.).

Since PTs are really no different from the rest of humanity, a speaker at a PT convention who demonstrates the 5 C's will also be likely to "wow" the audience and convince them of the "rightness" of their message.

I did not mean to say that we should all try to morph our personalities so that we can be as charismatic as Stan Paris or Rev. Angley.

What I mean to say, and Barrett illustrated this well with his televangelist example, is that the speakers message doesn't matter nearly as much as most of us here wish it did. Those looking for leadership, guidance, the "ANSWER", will be easily taken.

I have been one of those people. After returning from a Sahrmann course, earlier in my career, I really thought I was going to set the world on fire and identify all of the movement impairment syndromes and fix them. Same thing with Gary Gray. I got back from his course thinking I was going to "function" the heck out of everyone. Fortunately, my underlying skeptical nature took over and I saw that something was missing.

The "truth" has nothing to do with what we believe.

mike t

[Diane]

I found this (http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan05/savoir.html) just now.. it suggests faint hints having to do with mirroring.
...six descriptors: emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, eloquent, visionary, self-confident and responsive to others. But possessing all six traits guarantees only charisma potential, Riggio explains: "It's not clear that having all these skills makes you charismatic."

He has researched "zero acquaintance," the situation in which people make fairly accurate predictions about the behavior and personality of others they haven't interacted with using photos or initial, seconds-long observation. Kenny has found that people are great at judging another's extraversion, which correlates with leadership and charisma.

Zero acquaintance, he says, may help explain a certain aspect of charisma. A follower's reaction to those charismatic qualities may be an automatic response, suggesting that some people draw in others simply by being physically attractive or confident.

actions can speak louder than our words, Kenny says. "Evidently, personality is somehow reflected in our appearance, our nonverbal behavior and how we express ourselves," he says. "Physical appearance plays a role, sending signals to other people, which affects their way of behaving."

Frank Bernieri, PhD, an Oregon State University psychology professor, studies these physical signals and believes that synchrony is connected to charisma.

He has found in previous research that people subconsciously switch their postures to match that of someone they are talking to. He believes this ability to connect with others on a grand scale--as when people line dance or do the wave at a football game--holds a key to charisma.

"Mass synchrony creates a positive, enjoyable experience," he says. "When that kind of synchrony occurs with a single person, you think they are charismatic." Bernieri has found that high-rapport interactions have high synchrony and expressivity.

But that's not enough, he says: "It's all about timing, repetition and rhythmic cadence, raising amplitude at key points. This is a craft, and you have to play the crowd like improvisational jazz. The charismatic individual knows the gestures but also has the innate ability to play any given audience."

Some people, he argues, in the timing of their breaths, gestures and cadence of their speech, can enrapt listeners into synchrony, where they "breathe and sway in tune with the speaker."

The physical idea of charisma finds support in other research as well: Other research finds people who shift posture more often and use more smiles, gestures and eyebrow raises appear more charismatic. Still other work looks at the "chameleon effect," which shows that training people to mimic other people's mannerisms can be surprisingly simple--and it does encourage people to like the mimicker.

Interviewers, blind to the participants' instructions, intuitively liked participants who naturally mimicked them without instruction to do so. However, they remained neutral to those who intentionally mimicked interviewers.

"This is akin to teaching someone to slam their fist on the table to make a point," Bernieri says. "It's not the same as when it happens naturally, and charismatic people do it naturally."

So, what I get out of this is that charisma is something that appeals to the nonconscious bits of brain.

[Gil Haight]

So, if this stuff is all unintentional, why does it spark feelings of unfairness?
Gil

[Diane]

Gil, don't we all want to be optimal, not suboptimal? Haha, just kidding.

Mike's post made me think of the national PT congress I attended a year ago.. I hadn't gone to one of these in a couple decades. I was struck by how my perceptions of PT spectacle had developed in the interlude, how much more flashy it all seemed, how frankly motivational much of it was designed to be, how I had to get away at times to clear my mind of noise and images. The charisma factor operated throughout the entire affair.. sucked me in enough to actually buy CDs made on the spot of the various speakers that I found uplifting (which I never even opened let alone ever listened to). It seemed set up to take full advantage of the mirror neurons of an entire profession's need for occasional doses of pageantry to keep it reassured and cohered and maintained and lubricated for movement outward into society. What a big effort and expense. I guess the people who love to plan these sorts of things to keep the troops on track are doing what they were meant to do. I guess they find such activities their own creative expressions out into the world. Every pageant is a "pride parade" for the community involved, and I suppose PT is a "community" too, in need of occasional trips to the well.

So I guess they are necessary, in general. I think my personal need to absorb what they offer is minimal to nonexistent.

[nari]

Diane, it all rather sounds like NLP strategies; how to get to people in order to convince them of what they are missing out on. Mostly window dressing, and sheer salesmanship.
I have also noted how scepticism seems to flourish after the event.

How can we arrange our sceptical thought processes so they occur throughout a presentation, not afterwards? Mind you, they can ruin a good show, sometimes - Titanic was so full of technical errors that I thought it quite a silly movie....

Nari