Our way forward

[Barrett Dorko]

This deserves its own thread.

This week’s interview on Point of Inquiry is linked to The Debunking Handbook.

Take a look. This. Is. Huge.

[nari]

Great stuff.
We have seen how debunking clinically-oriented myths causes backfire any number of times on this site. Sceptics have their work cut out for sure.

Nari

[proud]

I would love to see SS create a debunking orthopeadically driven care document with the guidelines outlined in this handbook

[Diane]

Originally Posted by proud

I would love to see SS create a debunking orthopeadically driven care document with the guidelines outlined in this handbook

Want to start on that proud?

[Jon Newman]

Given the information in the podcast and booklet maybe SS should take down the MFR Great Conversation thread (or move it off the front page) despite it being, by far, the most popular thread ever at SS coming in at 59,368 views at the time of this writing. It could be replaced by a new post consistent with the principles set forth in the booklet.

[Barrett Dorko]

I am all for that Jon.

[ginger]

I'm afraid whatever value this publication may have is somewhat diminished by being lauded by a site whose spin on spin approach to "climate change science" is risible.

[Barrett Dorko]

ginger,

Please stay away from this. It's too important for me to try and figure out what you're trying to say.

[ginger]

It's a bit like having science literature on anthropology being reviewed by "Christian Digest" or papers on recent archaelogical discoveries of dinosaurs reviewed by "Creationist Science" magazine. A seemingly valuable text on scepticism/debunking, reviewed by a site whose reason to be, is to add nonsense to nonsense about warmist /alarmist spin, while adding further to the belief mentality that surrounds mainstream warmist agendas.
Whatever valuable insights the "Debunking Handbook" may have , is somewhat lost in the effect the site may have in attracting only (warmist) believers and not true sceptics.

[Jon Newman]

Ginger,

It isn't clear to me whether you read the booklet and listened to the podcast. My guess, based on your comments, is that you haven't. Either that or you completely lost the point of the booklet (demonstrate how the principles can be applied) while becoming focused on the subject of the example.

[nari]

C'mon, Geoff

Doesn't matter whether you are a climate-change denier or someone who believes in ghosts and gorgons.

The purpose of the article is about convincing someone to look at and recall facts, not fiction; something everyone needs to do at some stage in life. Whether they then decide to stick with fiction to explain science is in the lap of the proverbial gods.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Ginger,

Go away.

[Barrett Dorko]

The thread The Survival of our Idea came to mind as I listened to the podcast.

Now over two years old, it tried to detail how we have failed to expand the ectodermal/neuroscience meme into the mainstream of therapeutic approach and method.

In post #214 I said this:

The delicate sensibilities of our colleagues aside, I find it impossible to pretend that two totally opposed ideas can co-exist without one being identified as simply wrong. I presume a scientist would get this, but therapists typically do not.

The comment seems prescient, and maybe, just maybe, we can further examine some of our mistakes here. I suppose that going through each of the three “backfire effects” – explaining them and giving examples – would be best.

But I’m open to suggestions.

[Gil Haight]

Barrett,

I couldn't agree more that this is one of the best opportunities out there to help the cause. The Neuro V. Ortho challenge may fall too easily into the overkill backfire. How about subjective /objective?
We have to stay with this!
Gil

[Gil Haight]

It is amazing how relevant this is. Neuroscience to the physical therapist:

1) unfamiliar as compared to orthopedics (familiarity backfire)

2) new information easily becomes overkill (overkill backfire)

3) cultural worldview of PT is clearly ortho/biomechanical (worldview backfire)

it is so obvious why we have failed. Where to start?

Gil

[Diane]

Interactor/operator hasn't backfired yet. Has it? Or maybe it hasn't gotten going yet very much either.

Ectodermal/mesodermal raised some itch but I don't think it completely backfired...

[Gil Haight]

Diane,

We may not have backfired, but we certainly are not on fire either. Don't you think the interactor/operator paradigm is unfamiliar to PTs. Just the terms themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think it is quite important for the concepts of somatic education and can be very useful. However,there was a time when Somatics was much bigger than it is today. This thread could be about promotion without having to "dumb something down" I hate that phrase and simply won't do it. The debunking concepts are really quite different.
Gil

[smikolic]

This strikes me as something "real" and promotable, and more easily followed/understood by people trying to get a grasp on how to "think different" when they come here, or go to a neurophys course and want to know more. I'm excited to see this move forward, and with all the "teachers" on this site, it could be a wonderful undertaking!!

Comparisons and scientific reasoning all layed out in a tight little binder/handbook is very much like school, and probably a format more comfortable for the therapist mind that has been trained how to read and even understand literature on a VERY superficial level, but not necessarily how to apply or use it to change their clinical mindset/perspective.

I don't think it's a lack of exposure that has backfired, I think it's the presentation is too convoluted by unfamiliar terms and symbolism, meaningless comments, or indirect mentions of where to get more info that can bearly be digested by the beginning and formerly misguided mind, much less utilized to any suffient level to see an actual climate change.

My guess is that people motivated to change, get stuck somewhere in the land of looking at things from the perspective they were taught vs. one they came to on their own. I don't think people are truly taught to take literature and develop a perspective, I think they are, in general, taught a perspective, and then it's supported with a speckling of literature, and they are never REALLY challenged to defend or deepen a model or construct, just how to use it clinically, and where to get info to further the practice of THAT construct. ANY positive experiences they have had using their perspective and the mesodermal constructs from whence they came to treat people clinically only serves to strengthen that perspective and/or those constructs, vs. strengthening any sort of critical thinking skills regarding more than evaluation of a paper for the strength of its findings......argh.

I am willing to help with any part of the developement of this handbook, stikes me like an "Ectodermalist Approach for Dummies" kind of thing, not to deflower it, but perhaps that is exactly what is needed to help people turn their freakin' brains on.....then the hope would be that at least they will see the CHOICE they actually have, and that all the talk on this site pushing for change has an actual and important reason, and is founded from and grounded in science (vs. belief, as some continue to believe....)

Where do we start, and what can I do to help?????

[Diane]

OK, I likely got onto the wrong track Gil.
....

Before we can debunk, before we go forward, I think would help to examine/know what went wrong.

I found a paper (which looks to be freely available on Google), Born to choose: the origins and value of the need for control
http://dept.psych.columbia.edu/~koch...hoose_2010.pdf

ABSTRACT: Belief in one’s ability to exert control over the environment and to produce desired results is essential for an individual’s wellbeing. It has repeatedly been argued that perception of control is not only desirable, but is also probably a psychological and biological necessity. In this article, we review the literature supporting this claim and present evidence of a biological basis for the need for control and for choice-that is, the means by which we exercise control over the environment. Converging evidence from animal research, clinical studies and neuroimaging suggests that the need for control is a biological imperative for survival, and a corticostriatal network is implicated as the neural substrate of this adaptive behavior.

We strive for control as practitioners by developing ruts in our thinking that lead to and support operator models of behaviour; these are futile to try to support scientifically, since they are/were based on illusory pareidolic patterns in the first place.

We strive for control of our profession(s) in terms of public perception, scope, autonomy, etc.

I wonder some days why I'm still so energetic about fighting for a patient's brain's right to be whatever it needs to be to "move forward." I suppose it's payment forward. I guess I'm still in control mode, but it's more hope than a reality that if I treat others the way I would want to be treated, that some day when I need to be treated, "people" (other human biological entities) will treat me the way I've tried to treat them (or others like them), and someone will help me find my way back inside my own brain successfully so that 'I', as biological entity, can move how I want and not have pain. Very tenuous line of thinking, I realize. Very faint hope, given the way "control" has been short-circuited all over the place, and how crazy the treatment models became, how the assumption/bequeathment of "agency" (by professions, by workshop teachers) became so distorted. "Agency" should be left (along with locus of control!) with the patient. Anything done TO the patient, should be explained in terms of it being their choice to examine, retain or reject, at any second along the way, and enough time allowed for processing, and frequent opportunity extended for them to reconsider in light of the past couple minutes of their own experience of interacting with it. This requires continuous monitoring. The only "control" we should have with a patient is the control we exert over our own capacity to attend. I.e., to pay attention. Seamless one-on-one attention.

But I digress. Back to debunkification. (And I'll go back to reading that juicy paper.)

[Barrett Dorko]

I love the way this is going and the number of views. As soon as the podcast began I knew that this was for us.

To me, the problem with the operator/interactor model is that, without exception, therapists already think that they are superb interactors, much in the same way everyone thinks they're a great driver.

Why would they need any lectures on that?

I think that what might be more usefully taught is relationship and context, being careful to define what we mean by each.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by smikolic

Where do we start, and what can I do to help?????

With a draft? And by you?

[Gil Haight]

"The only "control" we should have with a patient is the control we exert over our own capacity to attend. I.e., to pay attention. Seamless one-on-one attention. "

That is hardly digressing Diane. It is perfect. It is what we are trying to promote.

Is it safe to assume that we are trying to debunk the fixer, surgeon, model? Can we come up with conditions or diagnoses where the server model (described beautifully above) is familiar to therapists? We are of course addressing chronic, dysfunctional pain.

Gil

[zimney3pt]

Originally Posted by Barrett Dorko

The thread The Survival of our Idea came to mind as I listened to the podcast.

Now over two years old, it tried to detail how we have failed to expand the ectodermal/neuroscience meme into the mainstream of therapeutic approach and method.

In post #214 I said this:



The comment seems prescient, and maybe, just maybe, we can further examine some of our mistakes here. I suppose that going through each of the three “backfire effects” – explaining them and giving examples – would be best.

But I’m open to suggestions.

After looking back through The Survival of our Idea thread, I was wondering are we trying to make the idea stick? Or instead aren't we more talking about the Heaths' second book more, Switch? Aren't we trying to change practice philosophy/principles? Operator to Interactor, Meso to Ecto, biomedical to biopsychosocial by debunking false premises in the formers based on neuroscience that leads to the latters being a better treatment paradigms to follow. That is hard, for a few of reasons 1) some PTs could care less about philosophy/principles they just want to learn the methods of the cookbook approach, 2) if what I'm doing works, why worry about the philosophy/principles, 3) There seems to be some science/research behind my philosophy/principles (some us might disagree) why challenge it, 4) I've spent a lot of money and time and it is the popular thing to do, and you want me to change and say all of that may have been a waist of time and money and I have to be a dead man now.

Sorry don't want to detour from the Debunking Handbook discussion, but just wondered if looking into ways of Directing the Rider, Motivating the Elephant and Shaping the Path might also fit into this as well.

[Jon Newman]

I think the booklet focuses on how to manage misinformation. I think promoting an approach or even a method of therapy is all well and good but it's not the point of the booklet.

What common misinformation blurbs are epidemic in PT practice?

[ian s]

I haven't heard the podcast http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debu...-download.html but post 38 by Chris G in reply to the handbook seems to sum up a lot of the problem of changing beliefs and practice .......??

[Jon Newman]

Hi Ian,

That post prompted a couple of thoughts. One is that there are probably many ways to change beliefs and practices and his latter suggestions are things that aren't (in my opinion) conducive to a discussion board but would be during a consult.

The other thought I had was prompted by his discussion of memory. Memory, and specifically where it is stored, is one of those areas in some PT circles that could benefit from a thoughtful debunking.

[Gil Haight]

In the last part of the interview, Cook describes how as a Christian he can connect with other Christians regarding climate change. I have never quite understood why that particular group (at least a portion of it) is antagonistic regarding climate change but I've never understood why the PT community struggles with neuro either. Anyway, Cook says he is considering common ground ideas such as universal justice, fairness, "mission of the church stuff". Obviously he is considering the world view backfire issue.
The world view of our colleagues seems to be rooted in will power and responsibility. We know the former is misleading but who can argue with the latter. We do have free won't. Have our ideas here strengthened those traditional world views?
I'm convinced Cook is on to something because I have often heard form patients the exact opposite of what I intended my original message to be. Has anybody else had this experience.
Gil

[Barrett Dorko]

Excellent Gil. And yes, I've had the same experience.

There's also the first backfire effect - familiarity.

Aren't people automatically familiar with the fact that acupuncture can miraculously reduce pain? Isn't this "fact" reinforced by Sal "Big Pussy" Bonpensiero on The Sopranos? (If you don't get that last one it's because you're not watching enough television)

Don't we already know that back ache is the result of muscle weakness?

Feeling very dead today.

[John W]

We have to be careful of these backfire effects. Cook also bravely criticizes Dawkin's approach to persuading religious people of the value of evolutionary theory. Dawkin's seems to have tried to modify and soften his approach in his latest book, but now few religious people trust his motives. He's branded as anti-religious due to consistently in the past setting off all these backfires.

Only his "choir" listens to him anymore.

This should be a cautionary tale for us.

[Diane]

A complicating factor may well be extrinsic reward robbing us of intrinsic reward: The Overjustification Effect.

Excerpt:

They ..divided the children into three groups. They offered Group A a glittering certificate of awesomeness if the artists drew during the next fun time. They offered Group B nothing, but if the kids in Group B happened to draw they received an unexpected certificate of awesomeness identical to the one received by Group A. The experimenters told Group C nothing ahead of time, and later the scientists didn’t award a prize if those children went for the colored pencils and markers. The scientists then watched to see how the kids performed during a series of playtimes over three days. They awarded the prizes, stopped observations, and waited two weeks.
..Group B and Group C didn’t change at all. They went to the art supplies and created monsters and mountains and houses with curly-cue smoke streams crawling out of rectangular chimneys with just as much joy as they had before they met the psychologists. Group A..were different people now.. “spent significantly less time” drawing than did the others, and they “showed a significant decrease in interest in the activity” as compared to before the experiment. Why?

The children in Group A were swept up, overpowered, their joy perverted by the overjustification effect. The story they told themselves wasn’t the same story the other groups were telling. That’s how the effect works.

The deal the children struck with the experimenters ruined their love of art during playtime, not because they received a reward. After all, Group B got the same reward and kept their desire to draw. No, it wasn’t the prize but the story they told themselves about why they chose what they chose, why they did what they did. During the experiment, Group C thought, “I just drew this picture because I love to draw!” Group B thought, “I just got rewarded for doing something I love to do!” Group A thought, “I just drew this to win an award!” When all three groups were faced with the same activity, Group A was faced with a metacognition, a question, a burden unknown to the other groups. ..Thinking about thinking changes things. Extrinsic rewards can steal your narrative.

[nari]

Dawkin's seems to have tried to modify and soften his approach in his latest book, but now few religious people trust his motives. He's branded as anti-religious due to consistently in the past setting off all these backfires.

Exactly. He is branded for life because he often displayed written and verbal aggression towards the believers; Hitch was just as intense but in a softer way.

I've had unexpected backfires from very open-minded PTs when trying to explain ideomotion and SC. One said: Mulligan's been using this simple contact thing for years; it's nothing new. I just felt deaded (an expression the UK physios will know from the Goons).

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Originally Posted by John W

We have to be careful of these backfire effects. Cook also bravely criticizes Dawkin's approach to persuading religious people of the value of evolutionary theory. Dawkin's seems to have tried to modify and soften his approach in his latest book, but now few religious people trust his motives. He's branded as anti-religious due to consistently in the past setting off all these backfires.

Only his "choir" listens to him anymore.

This should be a cautionary tale for us.

How do you like his new book John? Would it be worthy of a book club discussion?

[Barrett Dorko]

In reference to post #28 above:

A graduate of Northwestern’s school of law and a brilliant woman I’ve known for thirty years told me at a Christmas party last night that her dog was getting acupuncture at “a holistic veterinary clinic” in Chicago.

Dead, Dead, Dead.

Oh yea, Merry Christmas.

[Ken Jakalski]

Hi Barrett!

A graduate of Northwestern’s school of law and a brilliant woman I’ve known for thirty years told me at a Christmas party last night that her dog was getting acupuncture at “a holistic veterinary clinic” in Chicago.

.

And just think of all the unexpected consequences...

[smikolic]

Diane,

At first I thought (in answer to your post), "are you kidding, a debunking handbook authored by myself, and me alone??? .....it would be a lifetime or more challenge....no way I could handle that!" I started to assign the "parts" ie. Barrett would lead the organization of the "hands off" parts, with stories and lit; and Diane would lead the manual stuff (and we could do "teams" where people together look up lit and help each other write their parts), maybe John Ware on the excercise stuff, someone on trigger points, on "inflammatory pain," on the intro, on making sure a schedule gets followed, etc. And we all come together for the publication at a later date, or we could even do a series.... debunking the operator model in verbal interactions, or in manual techniques, debunking core stabalization, debunking trigger points, etc., etc.

Then I thought, well, sure it's a big, even huge undertaking, but I could start in parts too, or I could pick one or two things to "attack" - like the operator model and debunking it in verbal interactions and manual techniques. Not overly overwhelming....just a lot of work to gather and organize in a handbook sort of presentation. Hmmm....

Thanks for the push......I'm hoping to start something, and I know where to get help and added info to make it something useful! But, if you all are interested in a "group project" sort of approach, I would be more than willing to pitch in and do my "part" or help someone with theirs, if they are interested.

Barrett, thanks for the thread!


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

[Diane]

Stephanie, the first thing you'll notice, taking on a big job like that, which is like a janitorial contract for a massive complex, is that planning it is the hardest part. The second-hardest part is, trying to organize people to do the work, and understand it well enough to do it effectively without getting in each others' way. Thirdly, you'll find the equipment you can cobble up for the purpose of cleaning such a huge place consists of a whisk broom, and no dust pan, so you improvise. Usually you'll be forced to small the job down to just one room; still full of energy, you start industriously in that room, sweeping, sweeping, and after awhile you look up and with a sinking feeling realize the room you're working on has been in your own house the whole time. Or else you start out industriously, sweep and sweep, look up to monitor your work and see that you swept the dust pile toward somewhere where there is no exit and have to sweep the whole thing elsewhere. Or else you start out industrially, sweep and sweep, then a bunch of mesodermalist naysayers come along to jeer your efforts and you waste a bunch of energy chasing them out of the room you're trying to clean up because they don't see your work or why it's important and blow the dust all over again and deliberately track it around. Which is why only dead people bother with such a project. Go for it!

[smikolic]

Seriously, at first that was like, "yah, yah, oh...totally...didn't think of that one!!" ....then I thought, "what, am I cheering myself right out of this project???" Then you finished just where I was committing myself to the thought again, with more full knowledge of what I might be up against moving forward, beyond just myself.....

To sum it up, I found your post quite encouraging.........I must be dead!

Well, over the weekend conversation regarding this project and on a 4 hour drive back home, I even have my husband helping me with the layout/theme, myths to debunk, how to prioritize/categorize and what to do to make it simple and promoting a shift, etc. I already have a couple of working titles and a cover design....want it to attract and explain like the Explain Pain book, but from a different approach.

This is going to be terribly aweful to organize and plan, wholley time consuming and mostly boring to get together, and who knows if it will leave any impactful or lasting impression after all anyway...
......and I have no idea why that sounds like so much fun!


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

[Diane]

Because it's never, ever, ever, in the history of human primate social grooming, EVER been done in any sort of systematic way. Go for it!

[nari]

Go for it, Steph.

There would be quite a few of us who can assist once it is worked out where to start. From my point of view, it might be easier to start with the common myths such as weakness = pain and therefore strengthening resolves pain.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

This will remain a difficult task. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but only that something that diminishes our colleague's defenses must be discovered and used. Remember, we want to build a palace and they entered a fortress some time ago.

We have to remove the door.

I can't help but think that altering their worldview will be necessary at some point, but that's like telling someone else not to be in love.

I always enter a new job hoping that the other therapists will want to talk about therapeutic issues and the literature. What I've found instead are bitter, sometimes hateful and decidedly anti-intellectual sorts who are full of self-righteous posturing and want only to gossip, tell hero stories and talk about their pathetic lives. There's a lot of eating in there as well.

Well, maybe the next job will be different.

I'm hopeful but not optimistic.

[smikolic]

Here's what I've got working so far.....

Cover: bright brilliant blue with a picture of a hand holding a marrienette (spelling??) and the strings either attached to a blank puppet, or form into a question mark (depending on title and how it looks).

Title ideas:
Debunking the Myths Surrounding Manual Care
Manipulation or Interaction, That is the ?
Therapy and the Operator Model, Debunking the Myths Surrounding Manual Care

Inside I'm picturing layouts with a myth up in a corner or centered at the top of a page, probably in some bright lettering or in a display sort of set-up, followed by a page rich with pictures and facts that are referenced, to break down the "myths." Maybe some factoid bubbles....something "fun" and simplifying w/o being too cheesy or hard to read for a patient or provider (hard balance, I'm sure.).

Gonna have Homer Simpson's quote in there somewhere: "Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything." ......or not!

The myths I'm starting to form to be debunked are probably not going to be all captured in this book, have to prioritize to only ones surrounding interaction and/or hands-on care, or I think it will get too big (already the list is too long...). Thinking each "myth" will be a chapter, so people can open it quickly and see if there is anything that speaks to them....Can do a series of inexpensive books to cover a wide range of paradigms in the therapy world perhaps.........just an idea right now though....Shoot, I need to look into a publisher too at some point.....any ideas how to get that started, who to go through???


Ok, here's a few "myths" to debunk (just a start and not focused at a particular "theme" at this point):

1. You have to talk to your patients to interact with them.
2. Treatment begins when the evaluation ends.
3. If a person is weak, weakness is the problem.
4. If a person is malaligned, malalignment is the problem.
5. If a person is tight, tightness is the problem.
6. If a person is inflammed, there is an injury present.
7. If a person is in pain, there is an injury to tissue causing it.
8. I can change the alignment of the bones with my hands.
9. I can change the length of fascia with my hands.
10. My hands change the tissue I work with.
11. I can heal a patient faster.
12. Passive range of motion helps increase active range of motion.
13. Triggerpoints exist.
14. I can feel cerebrospinal fluid movement with my hands.
15. Fascia is what is moving with my myofascial techniques.
16. Stretching relieves pain.
17. Stretching prevents injury.
18. Stretching lengthens muscles through elongation of the sarcomeres.
19. Strengthening stabalizes joints (not sure how to better get at stability here...).
20. Strength is in the muscles.
21. The nervous system can't create pain.
22. Unconscious movement doesn't matter (isn't therapeutic??).
23. Breathing is good for relaxing.
24. Patients cannot fix themselves.
25. What a patient tells you is reliable information.
26. Hands on guidance is the best teacher.
27. A patient doesn't need to pay attention to benefit from their exercises.
28. Interactions with patients are different from interactions with friends.
29. Interactions are for information gathering or giving.
30. I need to lead my patient down the information highway.

I can add to any of these to get at my thoughts surrounding if you have questions, and please feel free to critique/suggest freely. I'm hoping to make this collaborative in any way people are willing to help. I'm thinking a donation of a percentage of sales to SomaSimple would be a good way to pay back for the info, or perhaps to fund something the moderators want to see supported to move things along.........again, suggestions are welcome.
The hard part will be gathering and reporting the data to debunk the myths. But I'm just getting started. If you have things that really work to debunk any of these just laying around, send them my way, I will start organizing and going through them for addition.....and thanks ahead of time for anything you all add and/or assist with!

[smikolic]

oooo...maybe the marrienette "strings" are nerves, and the nerves connect to the puppet's brain!!!! That would be weird enough to catch some eyes!

I can tell already I'm gonna love the designing/laying out of this handbook WAY better than gathering/presenting the info in words.....artist brain...and a dead one!

[zimney3pt]

Seth Godin talks about giving away a book in one of his posts.

Maybe just do one myth and give it away to build some steam for a book with more myths to follow. I do like Barrett and Jason's response title "Manual Magic: The method is not the trick".

Lots of great ideas you have already, Steph. I like where your headed.

[Diane]

I've occasionally imagined some sort of debunkifying alphabet book, starting with "A is for alignment", but never got much further than that.

You've got the vision and everything! How it's gonna look, what will catch the eyeball - good work so far.

[smikolic]

Kory,

Thanks for the connection there....I have no idea how to get an ebook published, or where to start, so I'm sure I will be doing some learning and looking into this stuff going forward here. I think I'm gonna focus on the creation of something, and let the presentation of it come when we figure out where/what way is most appropriate....I think right now anyway.

The closest I ever got to publishing anything (still not done with it yet), is a little poetry booklet a local printer in our area worked on with me. It's final draft is done, ready to print, but I'm apparently too chicken, or not making enough time to get 'er done......That's another thing on my list of things to get done for myself. I will talk to him about this idea too when I get closer to getting it ready for presentation.

I like to idea of a free "teaser," or presenting online....

Thanks!

[Jon Newman]

I'd buy this book. I hope you're able to see it through.

Originally Posted by smikolic

Inside I'm picturing layouts with a myth up in a corner or centered at the top of a page, probably in some bright lettering or in a display sort of set-up, followed by a page rich with pictures and facts that are referenced, to break down the "myths."

This would be considered a presentation error according to the handbook. See the section on The Familiarity Backfire Effect.

[Bas Asselbergs]

Great ideas Stephanie!
Marionette is the word - and that would look quite nice.

[nari]

Steph,

Instead you could start with the fact in strong colour and proceed to debunking the myth which ignores the fact.

Pain from a sprain starts in the brain, followed by:

7. If a person is in pain, there is an injury to tissue causing it.

Nari

[smikolic]

Jon,

Thanks! I read it over again and it did evoke an idea....I think I have to present myths in a way that either explains why the myth persists or in a way that presents the facts.

ie. Strength is NOT in the muscles.
Stretching is NOT an effective way to relieve pain....or something...

The only thing I don't like about that is it seems too firm, too turn-offish...but I'll play with it.

This whole thing is gonna be a big Worldview Backfire Effect risk, but I will have to keep reviewing this pamphlet through the development of our book....I'm thinking something that affirms treatments/techniques as beneficial in some way to re-affirm a person who is reading that sure what they do is effective, BUT how they think is really what we need to worry about and develop so that techniques that "work" are more effectively used..........hmm. I'm sure there are more ways to do that.....

Thanks again!

[smikolic]

Nari,

LOVE the phrasing.....funny, punny, and TRUE!!!

Great.....now to get the ball rolling!