new kid on the block

[John W]

...there are a small number of plain stupid and malicious people who do this kind of thing...

It's not the stupid people that I'm concerned about, it's the stupid explanation that they use to justify what they do that scares the hell out of me.

[dictostelium]

Hi ANdy - that's quite a set of questions

Originally Posted by amacs

What about this discussion by Hyman. His piece on the Mischief Making of Ideomotor Action may also be helpful.

I really don't trust anyone who posts on Quack* Especially since his references refer to articles by other Quackbusters or to popular press. The supposed aim of QW is to unmask unscientific practice, but surely on that basis, ff this ideomotor illusion was real, he would have not just published a self-referantial opinion but also publisged a peer reviewed paper? Just athought. I said wearlier - "If you don't trust yourself, who can you trust?" and it seems that anyone who reads that article and then assumes (as a result of reading it) that they can't sense is trusting Ray Hyman PhD more than themselves. I just don't go there. Mischief-making yes - but the mischief is not in the ideomotor wotsits.

Originally Posted by amacs

How do you explain haptic/visual illusions - or do you just assume they are of no concern particularly when you are making claims of having a sensory capacity that is not found in most people?

No concern at all. Everyone senses qwuite differently. Most people are quasi-synaesthetic in some sensory areas. My experience is that if I a) open up to the possibility that I might sense somethign, and b) (the most difficult bit) I don't try - I just stay open to the possibility, then the senses respond. I don't claim anything - I just do what I do, how I do it.

Originally Posted by amacs

As for scalp thickness being only 1-2 mm it averages 4mm see here and here.

yes - an average means some parts are thinner (round the coronals suture I mentioned, which is easily palpable on most people) and some are thicker (e.g. the Temporalis). I don;t consider ot to be some kind of special sense to be able to feel a suture an dthen estimate how much flesh & skin lies between the bone and the hand.

Originally Posted by amacs

All of this is somewhat beside the point, the burden of proof actually lies with you to demonstrate how CST works in the way you seem to think it does.

I do - to my patients

Originally Posted by amacs

Now that is interesting thank you for that although the jump to CST as the explanatory model of choice eludes me.

We all need a framework to hang our hat on - I just happen to gel with CST rather than massage or psychotherapy or acupuncture or - whatever.

Very best wishes

Andrew

[Barrett Dorko]

I do - to my patients

I'll bet you do.

[zimney3pt]

Andrew,

As you may be realizing (or not) this is place where typically two types of therapists show up:

1) Those that are willing to question what they do and willing to struggle through the cognitive dissonance that will most likely come about. The discomfort comes when they are truly seeking understanding of what we do daily in their interaction with patients through what science actually reveals to them may not be what they once believed or were taught. They usually find out they have a lot to read and a need to ask questions and process thoughts, read some more, process some more - until eventually they become what we refer to as a dead man around here.

2) Those that believe they already understand what they do and selectively use science and beliefs to maintain confirmation bias to avoid any cognitive dissonance so they can continue to use their techniques in an operator stance. They usually tend to think they have read enough and are ready to tell everyone else about their miraculous handling skills. They wish to tell others how they could develop these miracle skills and come to understand their beliefs to heal all that they come into contact with. They are usually very secure with were they are (around here we call it the mother-ship) with their ability to move fascia or cranial bones, etc and/or change qi or some form of energy.

The first people tend to stay around a long time here because they realize the only person that they can change is themselves. The second does not stay around long because they see no need to change themselves and realize that their beliefs are not going to change others here, which is probably surprising to them.

As you can see by each person's avatar those that have been here a long time and are like the first kind of therapist. Only time will tell which one you are.

[John W]

Andrew/Hugh/dicto,

By the way, you're not allowed to add yet another identity so that you can simultaneously be both kinds of therapists that Kory just described. While you might be comfortable with it, I, for one, would find it unacceptably confusing to figure out which one of you I was conversing with. I'm actually already a bit confused.

Since I'm only a lone voice, that can't be considered an official policy of the board, but I'm hopeful at least one of you can convince the others that it's the proper thing to do.

[Bas Asselbergs]

It is comments like these that tell me there is likely a gap in your understanding of neurosciences:

I just happen to gel with CST rather than massage or psychotherapy or acupuncture

In science, it is not a question of picking a model to explain certain observations or perceptions.
I do not think you are willing to entertain that you are wrong about your perceptions (and science tells us that you are).

If that is correct, I will not bother with this discussion anymore since I have been through this type of discussion too often already. Trying to spoonfeed the references to someone who is unwilling to even begin to consider the existing knowledge regarding human perception and cognition should not be necessary.
Use the search function.

Bas out.

[amacs]

I really don't trust anyone who posts on Quack* Especially since his references refer to articles by other Quackbusters or to popular press. The supposed aim of QW is to unmask unscientific practice, but surely on that basis, ff this ideomotor illusion was real, he would have not just published a self-referantial opinion but also publisged a peer reviewed paper? Just athought. I said wearlier - "If you don't trust yourself, who can you trust?" and it seems that anyone who reads that article and then assumes (as a result of reading it) that they can't sense is trusting Ray Hyman PhD more than themselves. I just don't go there. Mischief-making yes - but the mischief is not in the ideomotor wotsits.

There is a degree of circularity and obtuseness in your response that I find quite disturbing for someone from a scientific background. It diminishes my interest in responding.
If you read the article, and I assume you didn't as you dislike the website on which it is posted you would have discovered it is a rewrite of the Mischief Making article and was a published paper and I believe the publishing journal does indeed peer review but hey don't let any of that get in your way. It is unfortunate that you have not made the attempt to understand what ideomotion might tell you, it may be closer to home but not in the way that you think.

No concern at all. Everyone senses qwuite differently. Most people are quasi-synaesthetic in some sensory areas. My experience is that if I a) open up to the possibility that I might sense somethign, and b) (the most difficult bit) I don't try - I just stay open to the possibility, then the senses respond. I don't claim anything - I just do what I do, how I do it.

I did not ask you if you were concerned I asked how you explain them, it seems you don't, you just ignore them. ANd you do claim quite a bit actually.

yes - an average means some parts are thinner (round the coronals suture I mentioned, which is easily palpable on most people) and some are thicker (e.g. the Temporalis). I don;t consider ot to be some kind of special sense to be able to feel a suture and then estimate how much flesh & skin lies between the bone and the hand.

Try using some counter evidence instead of making an assertion, that you think there is only 1-2mm does not make it so.

I do - to my patients

I doubt that, what you mean I assume is that you tell them you are using CST and if they improve you attribute that improvement to CST, that is devoid of any real attempt to prove anything. The average witchdoctor could say exactly the same, you appear to be using your outcome to confirm your input without any link actually being demonstrated.

We all need a framework to hang our hat on - I just happen to gel with CST rather than massage or psychotherapy or acupuncture or - whatever.

If you are sincere about wanting to help your patients and you wish to understand how you are able to do what you do but with a model that really does explain rather than obfuscates you can potentially, learn a great deal here, more than you think you may already know.


regards

ANdy

[Electerik]

Hi Dicto,


I myself have learned CST and I have a lot of questions that remain unanswered with that model. Maybe you can help me.
First off, you said

I am very much into feeling with my hands rather than reading in a book

and then mentioned (which you obviously took from a book.)

Sutherland, who devised Cranial work, did so originally by restricting the motion of individual bones of his own head and then his wife wrote down the resultant symptoms - projectile vomiting, personality disorders, etc etc. which all immediately went when the restriction was removed.

There's a big cognitive leap on your part that I can't quite grasp there. So my first (three part) question concerning CST is :
a) In all your experiential and empirical research, what has led you to believe that those are actually the cranial bones moving under your hands as per the written empirical claims of Sutherland?
b) Can't it be possible that it's something else moving under those hands of yours?
c) How did you go about eliminating all the other possibilities of movement (if you thought there were any to start with) before further elaborating on a fairly complex model?

Thanks.

[advantage1]

CST will never be proven to work since the CST practitioner is the operator 'feeling' the movements of the cranium. It is amazing what we can trick ourselves into feeling and sensing. Are you familiar with the works of Chevruel and 'table turning'? Here is an excerpt from a great article writen by Ray Hyman Phd:

Chevreul was one of France's most prestigious scientists by the time he conducted these investigations. By the 1850s, table-turning (also called table-tilting or table-rapping) had become the rage among spiritualists, both in North America and in Europe. In a typical session, a small group of persons, usually called "sitters," would sit around a table with their hands resting upon its top. After an extended period of expectant waiting, a rap would be heard or the table would tilt upon one leg. Sometimes the table would sway and begin moving about the room, dragging the sitters along. Occasionally, sitters would claim that the table actually levitated off the floor. Table-turning was what first attracted many prominent scientists to the investigation of psychic phenomena. During the summer of 1853, several English scientists decided to investigate this phenomenon. Contemporary theories attributed table-turning to such things as electricity, magnetism, "attraction," the rotation of the earth, and Karl von Reichenbach's "Odylic force." Electricity, which the public at that time considered to be an occult and mystical force, was the most popular of these explanations.
A committee of four medical men held seances in June 1853 to investigate [10]. They discovered that the table did not move when the sitters' attention was diverted; nor did it move when they had not formed a common expectation about how the table should move. The table would not move if half the sitters expected it to move to the right and the other half expected it to move to the left. "But," the panel commented, "when expectation was allowed free play, and especially if the direction of the probable movement was indicated beforehand, the table began to rotate after a few minutes, although none of the sitters was conscious of exercising any effort at all. The conclusion was formed that the motion was due to muscular action, mostly exercised unconsciously."

For the full article go here: http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...ideomotor.html

[Randy Dixon]

Andrew,

Welcome to SS. Enjoying your stay so far?
I am continually amazed how one of the stated aims of this site is to get other practitioners to "Cross the Chasm" yet the responses seem more intended to push people into the chasm or to run away screaming from it. Anytime you come into a new place there is some shuffling that goes on and there is a good deal of arrogance and condescension that occurs on this site, but stick it out and you'll find it worth your while. This isn't the first time CST has been discussed here, there may even be some hostility towards it, but I think people fail to realize that while this is an old discussion for them, it is new for you here, and it really isn't fair to you to expect you to be able to acclimatize immediately to an environment they have been in for years.

What you do isn't that much different than what most other people do on this site and much of what you believe is similar to what they believe, for instance your views about the importance of psychology and the interaction of the nervous systems. I think the only real disagreement anyone here has with you is the explanatory model you have chosen, and I'll agree with Bas and others, science and truth aren't about finding a model that fits your beliefs but fitting your beliefs to match reality. I understand your desire to trust your own senses, but in doing so you shouldn't be quick to dismiss other possible explanations. It isn't, or shouldn't be, about convincing you you are wrong, but rather providing you with some new information to fit into your model, maybe change it, and maybe to teach everyone else something as well. The people here don't know everything, we all have a lot to learn.

Your ideas will be, and should be, challenged, but if you are interested in exploring ideas then you are welcome and if someone is annoying, you are free to ignore them.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy says:

...much of what you believe is similar to what they believe...

Not true.

[zimney3pt]

Randy, I think the culture at SS is fairly well stated in the Culture of SomaSimple. It is not a tea party. I understand some don't like that and prefer the social niceties, but that is not what the culture here is about.

As I stated in my earlier post those therapist like #2 will most likely never cross any chasm no matter how nice someone is to them. But if they are like #1 they will work through the cognitive dissonance that will come about with sharp criticism of their ideas.

[Randy Dixon]

Kory,

I agree that the Culture of Somasimple is fairly well described, I also think that my view is accurate. I have been on SS, off and on, for about 6 years. In that time there have been maybe a dozen or so new regular posters, if that, and probably hundreds of visitors. I would also venture to guess that about 25% of the new posters point out that people at SS are rude, condescending, arrogant and apply double standards both in terms of evidence and behavior. Many times I agree with them. Most of the others just leave without saying anything. When 1 or 2 people state it, it is probably them, when it is something that comes up in virtually every thread with a new poster, it is probably us.

I hear regularly on this site that the views here are not being disseminated, that people aren't getting the message because they tune out and the population of this site and others like it is not growing. Yet whenever someone points out that new posters aren't being welcomed, but feel more like they are being attacked, (and not just their ideas) the reply from SS'ers is that it is just a result of others cognitive dissonance, or they are scared to face the truth or some other excuse to blame everyone else but themselves.

This is not an either/or scenario, despite what some say. You can have rigorous debate and challenge each others ideas without driving people off, attacking them or making them feel unwelcome. Insisting on trying to prove someone wrong about their life's work and comparing them to people who have killed children, before they have even posted a dozen posts, is not necessary and is not a "rigorous exchange of ideas".

[Randy Dixon]

Originally Posted by Barrett Dorko

Randy says:



Not true.

Barrett,


I guess we should both speak only for ourselves. I think given the entirety of my beliefs and the entirety of his beliefs we would find much in common. I shouldn't have spoken for you. From what was written, I would say that gentle handling and an attention to the patients response is common among what I have seen others post about their handling and what was posted here. Although there are other differences, the primary one I see is the belief about WHY changes occur in his patients.

[ste5e]

Hi Hugh,

You state that "Pain is not a primary function.." I would argue that it is. If procreation is our primary drive and hunger and thirst are secondary ones it is surely apparent that pain trumps them all. "Not tonight Dear, I have a headache." It is the prime survival mechanism. Pain is normal. If we are lucky we experience it rarely.

My world view and yours may be different. Mine requires a rational basis. I want to understand. So I understand my own biases. I understand medical science to the limit of my resources of time and access and intellect. I have 15 years of experiences with people and have evolved my philosophy of care several times by reflecting on them. It enables me to treat in a way which is based in evidence of several different scientific disciplines. It helps me treat people well. Using this understanding I aspire to help where I can, do no harm where I cant help and wherever possible be the full stop at the end of the sentence, at the end of the paragraph, at the end of the chapter. I hope that the next chapter is entitled "How I went on with my life, no longer afraid, able to carry the burdens I have by myself."
A bit trite but I am feeling a bit 'purple' today.
Kind thoughts
Steve

ps Thanks Diane thats sweet and Kory - I am happy for you to use those words.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy says:

Although there are other differences, the primary one I see is the belief about WHY changes occur in his patients.

Aside from what this guy says he believes, I want to emphasize that I don't believe things - I understand them.

You've said visitors were compared to killers. Wrong. My popularity was compared to the popularity of Jim Jones. NO ONE has been attacked from this end. Their ideas have been questioned and their explanations found inadequate. To state otherwise (as you have) is untrue.

[ste5e]

Forgive me Hugh and Barrett for any generalisation and inaccuracies in the first portion of this paragraph.
Why is important. To the vast majority of lay people there would be little to pick between Hugh and Barrett if they were to be observed treating their patients. To the uninitiated Hughs gentle pressure and Barretts simple contact would appear the same. Both would describe what to mainstream medicine are left field approaches. Both are modern interpretations founded in observations made over a hundred years ago.
But in the case for ideomotor movements they are real. Justified by observation and reliable they present a modus operandi by which a trained or aware therapist can justify a scientifically plausible mechanism of effect. Not so CST - there is no inter-tester reliability for detecting the flow or peak pressure of CSF. What seperates the two approaches is a why. Why that is important is because one would stand up in court as part of informed consent to treatment and the other would not.

As to the patients experience once we take away those that get better by having self-limiting conditions, those who regress to a mean having presented at a peak, those who respond to their social groomer, those that experience a significant placebo effect then the proportion that is left are the ones that matter - the ones for whom the details of the treatment they are subject to is important. All the rest just make us feel great for being there to witness it. Vast tracts of therapists from distance healing, energy, crystals and Reiki through all therapuetic AM (including CST) are experiencing this and thinking they are great and effective - rather than they are letting themselves be deluded. And so is the mainstream of medicine too - the therapist, doctors, injectionists et al.
Its just very challenging to isolate the ones who need the difference and to be that difference for them. I believe those people deserve evidence based medicine.

[John W]

It isn't, or shouldn't be, about convincing you you are wrong, but rather providing you with some new information to fit into your model, maybe change it, and maybe to teach everyone else something as well.

I agree. However, it is about protecting the public from charlatanism and potential danger, particularly to those who are unable to think for themselves or protest against unethical, anti-scientific interventions due to either ignorance or because their little brains are inaduately formed to make rational decisions.

What this CST proponent "believes" is flat out wrong and dangerous. The former has been proven over and over again. The latter only requires a single incident to raise serious concern. He has yet to provide any valid counter-argument, evidence or research to support his position.

To equate his demonstrably erroneous assumptions with what the members of this board understand demonstrates a profound lack of understanding on your part, Randy.

[ste5e]

Hi Andrew,
Sorry for refering to you as Hugh but I kind of latched onto your alter ego.
You state - "We all need a framework to hang our hat on - I just happen to gel with CST rather than massage or psychotherapy or acupuncture or - whatever." So could you hang your hat on an EBM framework? You would get something that made sense, something that you understood and something that would form a plausible science basis of defence if something you did ended you up in court. Something real rather than imagined. Or am I just silly thinking that is important.
Kind thoughts,
Steve

[John W]

I would also venture to guess that about 25% of the new posters point out that people at SS are rude, condescending, arrogant and apply double standards both in terms of evidence and behavior...When 1 or 2 people state it, it is probably them, when it is something that comes up in virtually every thread with a new poster, it is probably us.

Randy,
I'm confused. You say the board is accused of rudeness, condescension and arrogance by 25% of new posters, but then you say it comes up in "virtually every thread". Which is it?

Considering the amount of loons out there performing all manner of witchcraft and selling such vast varieties of snake oil based on their good intentions and pareidolic assumptions, I think only 25% having either the cajones or the lack of judgment making it here is a badge of honor for SomaSimple.

I think that our recent CST triumvirate fall into the latter category, by the way.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by ste5e

Forgive me Hugh and Barrett for any generalisation and inaccuracies in the first portion of this paragraph.
Why is important. To the vast majority of lay people there would be little to pick between Hugh and Barrett if they were to be observed treating their patients. To the uninitiated Hughs gentle pressure and Barretts simple contact would appear the same. Both would describe what to mainstream medicine are left field approaches. Both are modern interpretations founded in observations made over a hundred years ago.
But in the case for ideomotor movements they are real. Justified by observation and reliable they present a modus operandi by which a trained or aware therapist can justify a scientifically plausible mechanism of effect. Not so CST - there is no inter-tester reliability for detecting the flow or peak pressure of CSF. What seperates the two approaches is a why. Why that is important is because one would stand up in court as part of informed consent to treatment and the other would not.

As to the patients experience once we take away those that get better by having self-limiting conditions, those who regress to a mean having presented at a peak, those who respond to their social groomer, those that experience a significant placebo effect then the proportion that is left are the ones that matter - the ones for whom the details of the treatment they are subject to is important. All the rest just make us feel great for being there to witness it. Vast tracts of therapists from distance healing, energy, crystals and Reiki through all therapuetic AM (including CST) are experiencing this and thinking they are great and effective - rather than they are letting themselves be deluded. And so is the mainstream of medicine too - the therapist, doctors, injectionists et al.
Its just very challenging to isolate the ones who need the difference and to be that difference for them. I believe those people deserve evidence based medicine.

Great post.
I'd go a bit further and say, "science"-based medicine, as opposed to merely evidence-based. Even the CST'ers can get measureable outcomes. But the tooth-fairy isn't real. I.e., the supposed mechanism is just not plausible. I.e., it's mesodermal.

[advantage1]

Justified by observation and reliable they present a modus operandi by which a trained or aware therapist can justify a scientifically plausible mechanism of effect.

The only issue I have with this statement is the use of trained or aware therapist. I agree that having a scientifically plausible mechanism of effect is the difference between SC and CST. However, I don't think we can say a 'trained' or 'aware' therapist is the difference. I would not want to rely on my hands feeling subtle tissue changes and warmth.

[Diane]

This just in from Paul Ingraham, the skeptical massage therapist:

Palpatory Pareidolia

[PatrickL]

Randy said:

Although there are other differences, the primary one I see is the belief about WHY changes occur in his patients.

Barrett said:

Aside from what this guy says he believes, I want to emphasize that I don't believe things - I understand them.

Barrett,
I wonder if you could expand on your distinction between belief and understanding. Isn't there always an element of subjectivity in what we understand?

Barrett said:

Few claims in science are accepted as final. But as evidence piles upon evidence and theories interlock more firmly, certain bodies of knowledge do gain universal acceptance. They ascend a scale of credibility from
“interesting”
to “suggestive”
to “persuasive”
to “compelling.”

And given enough time thereafter, “obvious.”

My interpretation of what Randy is saying is that, the consensus view at ss (if there is such a thing), is that the science behind the neuromatrix and pain science is so strong that it should be viewed as obvious.

It must be incredibly frustrating to understand that this stuff is obvious, particularly when newcomers to the this site have not yet moved beyond the interest stage.

I'm not sure though that the science is strong enough to facilitate understanding to the point that it is obvious. My (limited) read is that the science is at least persuasive, it has compelled me to change the way i work, so i guess that makes it compelling. To get to obvious though, we need more than scientific plausibility. But the uncertainty of the neuromatrix model is such that we are stuck in the realm of plausibility, without proof. Therefore, it seems to me that we can't get to obvious, unless one believes their way to it.

I don't think it is a failure to believe things when it comes to science. We are not robots. I am suggesting though, that it is possible that the lines between belief and understanding can be blurred by good intentions. My thought is that the aggression and rudeness perceived by visitors to this site, is not just in the visitors head. I think part of it flows from a passionate belief in neuroscience, it's implications for PT, and the anger that arises when other Therapists explain their chosen treatment methods with very dubious, unconsidered, ego driven operator rationales.

Thoughts?

[advantage1]

Great quote from the Paul Ingraham article Diane posted above:

Perhaps some of the most experienced therapists know muscle texture like a blindfolded painter can tell you what type of paint you’ve dipped her brush in. But even if we can detect amazingly slight differences in tissue texture, that doesn’t mean that we know what it means … and pretending otherwise is the thin edge of a wedge of arrogance. It’s not practical, clinical knowledge.

[Diane]

I think part of the problem is also a wrong take on what constitutes "arrogance" in the first place.
A true-believer palpator may think they can feel all the stuff they think they can feel, AND assume they are still a humble body worker person just making a living, trying to "share" their own (supposedly) developed skill.
A science-based practitioner has stumbled into the disconnect between what they thought they knew and what is actually knowable. At first it feels humiliating, but that is likely due to the ego they may have built around their acquired palpatory "skill" being unveiled as not worth the powder to shoot a rat in the larger scheme of things.. so, is felt as humiliation. Not that they didn't have it coming if that's the case, but it never feels very good and it always comes from inside, not outside, so the person's brain has to act fast to declare a boundary between self and outside - protective (defensive) response. Little by little this will be dismantled as having been a reflexive response to internal arrogance. The person will see that what they projected as being arrogant on the outside of themselves, wasn't. In fact, becoming ready to accept new, conflicting information requires complete lack of arrogance, because nothing makes one feel more humble than finding out that there is almost no "knowledge" to speak of, none that is solid for the concrete-thinkers, at least, that can ever come to one by way of palpation.
I can hardly wait for Paul to write another paper, this time on conceptual hallucination (of various kinds) that arises from palpatory pareidolia.

[John W]

My thought is that the aggression and rudeness perceived by visitors to this site, is not just in the visitors head. I think part of it flows from a passionate belief in neuroscience, it's implications for PT, and the anger that arises when other Therapists explain their chosen treatment methods with very dubious, unconsidered, ego driven operator rationales.

Yes, willful ignorance on the part of my colleagues angers me. Bilking innocent people of their hard-earned money based on one's "experiential knowledge" also angers me. (I thought the Enlightenment era took care of trust in the senses.) Perpetuating unhelpful and even harmful memes that continue to drain the health care systems of modern societies while failing to provide effective care pretty well pisses me off.

Guilty as charged.

I'm not sure though that the science is strong enough to facilitate understanding to the point that it is obvious.

I think there are elements of neuromatrix theory that are obvious (e.g. pain is an output of distributed brain areas), some are compelling (e.g. a motor response is necessary for correction), some are further down the heirarchy (e.g. the specific impact of the feedback loops from the motivational-affective dimension).

I don't understand that Barrett thinks the model in its entirety is obvious.

[Barrett Dorko]

John, Once again, you've stated how I feel.

Mistakes begin when the neuromatrix is referred to as a single thing. Far from it.

Some aspects are obviously true and others merely compelling, or even, perhaps, less so. I read a Daniel Dennet piece this morning that addressed this problem specifically. A bolg post about all of that will follow soon.

Patrick, Read Why We Believe and let me know if this covers your question. It may not be enough.

[amacs]

If you are sincere about wanting to help your patients and you wish to understand how you are able to do what you do but with a model that really does explain rather than obfuscates you can potentially, learn a great deal here, more than you think you may already know

In light of Randy's post above I realise that the above could be construed as arrogant and or condescending,
Andrew I apologise. I was not careful about how I "spoke" I could have worded this more gently. I had intended to encourage not discourage a more rigorous attempt to engage in debate.

regards

ANdy

[Randy Dixon]

Originally Posted by John W

I agree. However, it is about protecting the public from charlatanism and potential danger, particularly to those who are unable to think for themselves or protest against unethical, anti-scientific interventions due to either ignorance or because their little brains are inaduately formed to make rational decisions.

What this CST proponent "believes" is flat out wrong and dangerous. The former has been proven over and over again. The latter only requires a single incident to raise serious concern. He has yet to provide any valid counter-argument, evidence or research to support his position.

To equate his demonstrably erroneous assumptions with what the members of this board understand demonstrates a profound lack of understanding on your part, Randy.

John,
We are talking about two different things here. The first is the rationale and science behind CST or any other technique or modality, and I have no problem with the idea that these should be rigorously challenged and required to meet the standards of science and rationality. This is not the issue I addressed. The issue is the manner in which it is done and how it is done the majority of the time on this board.

What we are dealing with here is perception, not objective facts, and what I wonder is why you think it is quite likely that what people perceive when they practice CST is a result of them deluding themselves to protect their beliefs and self-identity yet you reject the same idea that you, Barrett and others aren't deluding yourselves about your perceptions about your actions on this list. Barrett for example, has claimed numerous times that he has Asperger's Syndrome, which by its very definition includes difficulty in understanding social cues and interpreting social norms, yet he is certain that he is correct about his perceptions of the interactions here while I, and dozens of others who make the same observations, am wrong.

Yes, I find that I see groupthink, a gang mentality and a type of boorish behavior that I find offensive here quite often (as well as the complete opposite) but I also realize that the question "Why should anyone else care about what I find offensive?" to be appropriate and the answer is, by itself, no one should. So why do I bother mentioning it, repeatedly? Because I think that this site has a lot to offer and that the things talked about here do need wider discussion and greater acceptance. I believe that there is a huge gap in clinical reasoning that is at least partially filled here and very few other places. I criticize the manner and tone of discussion not because I believe we need a warm, fuzzy, place but because it is so ineffectual and counter-productive.

We talk incessantly about the impact of context, trust, not engaging defensive reactions and not attempting to force our wills on others because the principles of neuroscience show that these things are important and effective when interacting with others, yet we throw these principles out the window when we leave the clinical realm and enter this one. The principles remain the same, we are still interacting with another brain, why would you expect different results? If you force someone to feel defensive in the clinic, you know what the result will be, there will not be the change you are hoping to induce. When you communicate with someone on this forum, you are still communicating with them, no longer with your touch and non-verbal cues but with written ones, but the principles remain the same. Why do you ignore these principles now?

[Randy Dixon]

Originally Posted by John W

Randy,
I'm confused. You say the board is accused of rudeness, condescension and arrogance by 25% of new posters, but then you say it comes up in "virtually every thread". Which is it?

Considering the amount of loons out there performing all manner of witchcraft and selling such vast varieties of snake oil based on their good intentions and pareidolic assumptions, I think only 25% having either the cajones or the lack of judgment making it here is a badge of honor for SomaSimple.

I think that our recent CST triumvirate fall into the latter category, by the way.

I'm not sure what you are confused about, but first let me clarify that I did not take a statistically rigorous approach to my statement. I guessed and not particularly carefully. Still, there is nothing to be confused about. 25% of new posters complain, sometimes they do it on more than one thread, sometimes there are more than one new poster on a thread. The two statements I made do not mathematically or logically contradict each other.

You really think that calling people loons and accusing them of practicing witchcraft and selling snake oil isn't rude, condescending or arrogant? You obviously feel it is justified but I don't see how you can say it isn't one or all of the above.

[Barrett Dorko]

Nope. Your words will have no impact on my "manner" or "tone" because they aren't as you state.

[John W]

Randy,
The practice of CST is not theoretical. It is, as we speak, causing real harm to real people, some of them very small people who have no way to protect themselves from this kind of nonsense.

I'm ethically bound as a practitioner and morally bound as a human being to speak out strenuously against potentially harmful interventions, whether that harm be physical to an individual or financial to society.

I just saw your 2nd post- and yes, CST is akin to witchcraft. Do you think something else? Anyone practicing witchcraft in this day and age is either somewhat loony or they are sociopathic. I thought referring to them as loons was being charitable.

[Randy Dixon]

Diane,

I like your answer and agree that this is part of the problem. Change is hard and there is going to be some struggle and denial along the way. However, the regulars on SS are not immune to this, nor are they immune from being human with egos and defensiveness and a desire for status, just like all humans. Sometimes the charge of rudeness and arrogance is not a last ditch effort by someone forced to face a new reality but is just plain rudeness and arrogance.

I didn't have a dog in this fight. I don't practice CST, know almost nothing about it and find the rationale that I do know to be implausible. My beliefs were not challenged, but I clearly saw the rudeness and the rest coming from many. Like I said in my previous post, if it is just about being nice and playing according to Miss Manners rules, then this isn't much of an issue, but in my opinion it is about more than that. John W., for example, claimed that he gets mad at these charlatans. He feels his anger is just and righteous. I don't know, maybe it is, but here we have someone coming here because he is looking for more answers. The opportunity to plant a seed that will lead to doubt that will lead to change was there, and this is the only way change will occur. Instead John decided to vent, which may have made him feel better, but did little else except cause that opportunity to go away.

Who knows, we might actually have learned something we didn't know as well.

Let me add, before someone else points it out, that I am not a great example of doing what I preach. I wish I were. I can see the wisdom of it, but knowing and doing are two different things.

[Randy Dixon]

Originally Posted by Barrett Dorko

Nope. Your words will have no impact on my "manner" or "tone" because they aren't as you state.

Of course not!

Sorry, that one made me laugh. Have you considered that I am not talking about your intention when you write, which only you know and which I will accept is not meant to be arrogant or condescending, and instead I am talking about the perception of what you write, which often is?

Who do you think is better suited to judge the latter, yourself or others?

[John W]

I don't know where to begin with that, Randy. Who's venting? I'm taking a moral stand based on the overwhelming scientific evidence against the validity of the practice of CST. I can site an actual case of an infant that was killed by someone who referred to himself as a "craniosacral therapist" and was performing a procedure on this infant that was intended to alter the child's craniosacral rhythm.

Doesn't that anger you? If not why not? If this is indeed modern witchcraft and it is ripping people off left and right, doesn't that make you angry? If not, why not?

I do know something about it. I've read the studies. I've studied human anatomy and physiology extensively. I know this practice is an abomination of science.

You admit you know little about it, but you protest when someone who does calls it what it is. I find that stupendously arrogant.

[Diane]

Randy, a comment stuck on "tone" is a DH2, according to this chart. It isn't very effective.
Got anything else?
If not, then, no need to continue in that vein.

John and Barrett are using DH6, refuting the central point.

It would be great if you, and New Kid, could argue at that level. Then the conversation could move along.

Thank you for your attention.

[John W]

There you go with your "groupthink" again, Diane.

[PatrickL]

Thanks John and Barrett,
I think i will find it very useful to not consider the neuromatrix as 'one thing'. Much appreciated.

Barrett, that essay is excellent. Here's a quote from it:

Why do they continue to believe in such things? They believe because to do otherwise would seriously threaten their worldview and, ultimately, their personal feeling of safety.

Randy said:

If you force someone to feel defensive in the clinic, you know what the result will be, there will not be the change you are hoping to induce. When you communicate with someone on this forum, you are still communicating with them, no longer with your touch and non-verbal cues but with written ones, but the principles remain the same. Why do you ignore these principles now?

I think Randy makes a good point here. But then again... Over the past few days I've been involved in a Facebook discussion with a couple of pts about all this stuff. It's the first time I've been arguing from 'the dead side'. I thought I was writing as evenly and kindly as I could but (after first being dismissed with sarcasm and LOLs with regards to my obvious lack of knowledge of all things anatomy trains), I was labelled close minded for not considering alternate methodologies, and unprofessional for questioning the treatment philosophy of other pts in an open forum. I felt angry. I know, based on their comments that they hadn't done their homework... I saw all this from the otherside for the first time. I didnt get an answer when i asked how myofascial slings bring about phantom limb pain... The discussion ended with me quoting kory about the 2 types of people (those who end up dead, and those who don't- hope you don't mind kory)... They removed the chain of posts and I was subsequently 'de-friended'. I didn't make a dent in their thinking. I can only imagine how draining and annoying it must be to go through this time and time again with every new person who arrives with a cocky certainty that they have everything sorted.
John said:

I'm ethically bound as a practitioner and morally bound as a human being to speak out strenuously against potentially harmful interventions, whether that harm be physical to an individual or financial to society.

So what is the end game here? John, do you feel that your ethical duty is met simply by speaking out strenuously? What good does that do if it just antagonizes potential learners? Do you not hope to affect the willful ignorance you speak of such that harmful, misleading practices are discontinued? If so, and in light of the quote from Barrett's essay above, my thought is that the approach taken should be as non-confrontational as possible... even if it's the 400th time you've been through it. My thought is that for every new person, there should be an effort to recall how difficult a process it is to unlearn what was once known.

This would take tremendous patience I imagine, perhaps more than any single person could possibly muster up. It may be necessary though, if the goal is to enact change.

Thoughts?

[Diane]

When you're dead, it just doesn't matter. You have earned the right to speak your mind, whatever it contains, and with whatever "tone" you feel, for better or worse, because you've either
1. killed your own ego, or
2. someone killed it for you, and it feels good not to have it to have to maintain anymore. (Egos are so high-maintenance, take so much energy, are based on such a huge amount of utterly useless and baseless arrogance.) [/yeahIsaidit]

Seriously, we're all better off setting them completely aside and just getting on with trying to figure out a way forward. The way forward won't be by repeating all the stuff that has already failed to move us forward in the last 100 years...
And it won't be by tippy-toeing around newbie ostensibly tender feelings.

[PatrickL]

When you're dead, it just doesn't matter. You have earned the right to speak your mind, whatever it contains, and with whatever "tone" you feel, for better or worse,

Thanks diane, If/when I earn this right, my choice will be to use a friendly/cordial tone, with a hope that this approach will best serve the purpose of sharing knowledge and learning.

[Diane]

Over the past few days I've been involved in a Facebook discussion with a couple of pts about all this stuff. It's the first time I've been arguing from 'the dead side'. I thought I was writing as evenly and kindly as I could but (after first being dismissed with sarcasm and LOLs with regards to my obvious lack of knowledge of all things anatomy trains), I was labelled close minded for not considering alternate methodologies, and unprofessional for questioning the treatment philosophy of other pts in an open forum. I felt angry. I know, based on their comments that they hadn't done their homework... I saw all this from the otherside for the first time. I didnt get an answer when i asked how myofascial slings bring about phantom limb pain... The discussion ended with me quoting kory about the 2 types of people (those who end up dead, and those who don't- hope you don't mind kory)... They removed the chain of posts and I was subsequently 'de-friended'. I didn't make a dent in their thinking.

Sounds like you already have experienced being dead, and having people react.

I can only imagine how draining and annoying it must be to go through this time and time again with every new person who arrives with a cocky certainty that they have everything sorted.

It gets easier.
It really does. But it's not for sissies, being/living/being dead this far out of the manual therapy closet.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy says:

I am not talking about your intention when you write, which only you know and which I will accept is not meant to be arrogant or condescending, and instead I am talking about the perception of what you write, which often is?

Who do you think is better suited to judge the latter, yourself or others?

Not everyone agrees that this is the case:

Barrett does this though in a way which is not injurious or condescending. In fact his writing style invites the reader to engage in the dialogue. With a marvelous talent for juxtaposing seemingly disparate ideas, he relates them to physical therapy practices and inspires reflection...

From this thread

I suppose that there are those who huddle beneath Randy's wing. They can stay there as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure the tea is always available. The problem is the nature of the debate and the consequent care of the patient.

I’m especially amused by Randy’s implication that I think carefully about the interpretation of others with regards to my “tone” and “manner” before I hit the submit button. Somehow that doesn’t sound very authentic to me; it sounds like I’d be trying to live someone else’s life. That’s stressful you know.

When someone says they’ve come here to learn and then won’t answer questions about their “beliefs” and simply ignores the information offered I wonder if they actually meant to be validated instead. My ire at such a situation will certainly come through.

I mean it to.

[proud]

Randy,

Can I boil this down a bit. CST is pure BS. Over and out.

If "new kid on the block" finds that offensive...so be it. It's not my or anyone else's job to educate him. He is way off track and if he can`t see that in light of all available literature then he is either stupid or lost. I`ll let him choose.

I don`t find being polite when faced with blatent disregard for the scientific process especially where morality is involved very helpful at all. If he is practicing CST and utilizing the explanations for it`s process in the manner that I have read about...he is a menace to society. Seriously.

Besides, in my experience, people either engage in converstations to learn...or not. Those without ability to transition their thoughts when provided with the obvious...are typically offended.

Can`t help that.

Funny that so many get offended here....I think that speaks to the amount of magical thinking or lack of a moral compass that exists in our fields rather than something inherently wrong with the culture of SS.

[Electerik]

Hi Randy, Patrick,

I agree wholeheartedly with your/and Randy's point on openness and communication .
Yet, Patrick's FB scenario reminds me of Byron's conversation with an oseopath. Byron's well thought arguments were smashed down by some ego driven "tell it to my good results" attitude that was justified by name calling people on this forum. You'll often find this scenario if you look at all the great conversations on SS. More often than not, the one's who are asked to present rock solid proof of their model, often fall back on ad hominems and whatnot's of logical fallacy. I've never engaged in such conversation (this would've been my first if skipper hadn't left his hijacked thread ). I can relate to the folks that have been through this process over and over again, referencing thread after thread to people who just won't do the work.
I do find the tone abrasive and often times harsh (JohnW, does have a penchant for the dramatic ) but you both know as much as I do that getting over the tone and peering over to the other side with sincere curiosity, is a fascinating journey of uncertainty.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by PatrickL

Thanks diane, If/when I earn this right, my choice will be to use a friendly/cordial tone, with a hope that this approach will best serve the purpose of sharing knowledge and learning.

You already have the right, because (by the sound of it) you took it!

And you're the Newman recipient, so that should tell everyone that we do appreciate even conversation, and reward it when we see it, even if some of us also enjoy wrestling matches and verbal jousting from time to time, when occasions seem to call for it/call it up.

There will hopefully end up being more Patricks in the future, able to maintain an even temper throughout a period of cognitive dissonance, moving ever further into the Unknown Land of Not Knowing Yet Also Being Less Deluded About It, maybe fewer strong non-yielders needed.

Still, in the end, a perception of someone being curt or short or unfriendly or not cordial is, in a discussion forum, a matter of perception on the part of the perceiver, not fact.

We do take seriously the right and responsibility to call out manual therapy BS, when we see it promoted as if it were "truth" or something.

About JohnW.. I could tell you long stories about John, about playing rough hockey with him (but no concussions as far as I know), about our long fights elsewhere, but I'm really glad he got clear(er), and came here, and writes so fabulously, and can bark bark bark (he doesn't bite though).
One thing I've learned after ten years or more doing this, is that virtual skin grows back incredibly quickly once you stop picking at scabs.

[John W]

Thanks, Diane. As we say in hockey and other sports- no harm, no foul. Anyway, a good referee will invoke the "advantage" rule if the player is not unduly impeded by the foul from potentially scoring.

I continue to move down the ice/field/pitch toward the same goal that I've been after since embarking in this journey, which is ultimately about doing the right thing for the profession and most importantly our patients. I will strive to remain undeterred by the "cheap shots" from the ignorant, lazy and deluded. I was never one for taking a "dive"- not my style of play.

That's enough of the sports metaphor. I'll just end with this: What proud said.

[John W]

I do find the tone abrasive and often times harsh (JohnW, does have a penchant for the dramatic )...

Not nearly so dramatic as the reaction of the parents whose baby was killed by a CST practitioner, I'm sure.

By the way, Erik, aren't you the one who had an avatar of a Buddhist monk performing self-immolation at one point?

Sometimes I'm confused- mystified even- by what is said and presented here.

[zendogg]

Just so I am clear about this, and in reference to John's point about the baby death from CST...
The argument is only being made about the thought process behind CST, not the actual gentle GENTLE pretty much doing of nothing but touching the body that is the method of CST, right. I do remember in massage school being introduced to CST in a class and we were taught to gently squeeze the wings of the occiput once the CSrythm was felt in an effort to create a still point with the CSfluid. Other than that method, what else is there to CST that we are discussing here?
I get that the model of CST has been refuted as implausible but, as someone else stated before, gentle laying on of hands is what many of us here do. We are all seeing a change in our clients or we sure as hell wouldn't be using said technique anymore. So, again, is it the model error that we are attempting to stamp out with this discussion or the gentle laying on of hands?
Thanks,
Nathan

[amacs]

The model and its rationale, not the use of hands/touch to achieve a therapeutic effect

ANdy