Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[Eddy Maillot]

Being British himself and if he made up the word meme perhaps he perpetuated the everlasting tension between the two neighboring countries by alterating the meme into his own definition. Am I reaching way too deep? possible.

Eddy

[Diane]

Haha! Eddy, I see where you are coming from..
I think however that Dawkins wasn't toying with the French language, he just wanted a word that rhymed with "gene"....

[Luke Rickards]

I think that it's a bit unrealistic to expect young(er) people to immediately fall all over themselves adapting their minds to this new meme that seems so different

I don't know what can be realistically expected, but it is certainly quite possible for a young one to "immediately fall all over themselves adapting their minds to this new meme". Both Chris and I can attest to that. I even managed it while still at school.

Chris, we've shared the same training wheels. I'm going to keep them on for I while yet though.

Luke

[Barrett Dorko]

Ultimately, the goal should be to get rid of the traditional memes that have held us back for so long. They simply should not be taught. When will they disappear? The answer might lie in something Ian sent me a long time ago:

Planck's Dictum

Major advances in science occur not because the proponents of the established view are forced by the weight of evidence to change their minds, but because they retire and eventually die!

No, I don't know where he got this, but I really like it.

[Jon Newman]

Chris, did you ever get the feeling that when discussing the why of things that perhaps you were speaking with Lily Tomlin's Ernestine on the other end? Snort, snort.

[Diane]

Barrett,

I agree with you Diane, but this woman didn't fit into any of the categories you mention

... She might be a late bloomer.

Luke, Chris, you guys might be unusually bright/quick studies for young-uns, or unusually curious, or unusually immune to bad memes/belief systems, or unusually relaxed/laissez-faire/undistracted about your developmental stages/responsibilities.

Barrett,

the goal should be to get rid of the traditional memes that have held us back for so long

I agree... but how do we stop the replication of useless memes when they are like lubricant that helps keep currency floating around? Love Planck's Dictum.

[christophb]

Jon,

I actually know who you're talking about

Yeah Luke, I think I think I'm still a long ways away from them being riding partners... good to keep the wheels on for a while.

Diane, I think I am naturally curious and a bit of a trouble maker, I don't readily conform (Although I do feel guilty about not conforming )

I have a funny/not so funny story, it's more disappointing for our profession.

I was having a conversation with my co-worker/former manager as to why my schedule was so light (other than the obvious reasons that I get better results and D/C sooner ). And she said that because I do things so differently I wasn't meeting the expectations that people have about PT. Because of this she didn't feel comfortable putting people on my schedule when I wouldn't meet the expectations that had been established in the clinic. I have talked to this PT til I was blue in the face about why I do what I do, and was able to show it worked and pull out tons of information stating why it makes sense to do it that way... and still, just gotta meet expectations. As I practice explaining and educating patients I find they are quite receptive to the "new ways" (much more than PT's it seems, although some of my colleagues are coming around, I can be a persistent little bugger)

That's probably the kind of barriers that people meet when trying to put these ideas into practice coming back from a SC course.

Chris

[Walt Fritz]

Gone, but not forgotten!

Ah, Barrett, I'm glad I still am remembered by you. And, I'm glad that you have returned to your old self-deprecating self. I, too, cannot figure out why those 4000 students have not warmed to you. On a serious note, you asked

I'm wondering how anxious Walt, Dave, Scott and Pia might be to have a lot of people look at what went on there, to say nothing of Barnes himself. If they truly feel that they made their case and effectively refuted our objections they'll say so and invite others with some enthusiasm. I'd like to see that.

I have no fears about others viewing the information presented over the past month. There will always be a faction in therapy that "sides" with either you, or me. I doubt if believers on either side would be swayed way from their comfort zone. I think many, like myself, were turned on to much of the information presented here. All of you have wonderful minds and the enjoyment of both your work as well as the information that you share with each other is evident. An open mind is quite marvelous.

Newcomers to this site, possibly the folks from your classes that you sent to this site, or those wanting to learn more about which "side" (MFR or the NeuroNuts), has more credibility, will decide for themselves. They will see that we lack the "credibility", as you define it, but have tremendous successes. They will see that you have the backing of a tremendous amount of research, but will they accept your research as total and valid? An aside here, I must admit, that the amount of citations and books recommended for us MFR'ers to "see the light" was overwhelming. Having read many of the links, I skated to Amazon for a look at a few of the books that were suggested. I was amused to read some reviews of "The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness", by Antonio Damasio. The third review had the title: " Almost Entirely Speculation of the Worst Kind". this sort of reminds me of what Diane said of James Oscman's work. I do not know whether the Amazon reviewer is right or wrong, and I suspect that there is enough disagreement in science to allow for both of their opinions to be correct. I know, Diane, you posted someone's review of Oschman's work that corraborated your views. But, they are just your views. There is a wide space of views in the therapy world. If we followed only one, those of the APTA, neither Barrett's or John Barnes' classes would be allowed in our world. I, for one, do not wish to live in that world. I think there is a place for those who follow a strict orthopedic line, a researched neurological line, an eclectic MFR (and related) line, and, god forbid, an hot pack/ultrasound/10 reps of an exercise line.

A line in another thread on this site struck me as characteristc of the tone in which MFR and it's founder/followers has been treated on this site. On the "Diagnosis" thread, Nari was commenting on Mike's question as to whether posture has anything to do with pain.

I don't take any notice of posture..it is not related to pain

This statement embodies the dismissive nature that any opinion outside of the opinion evident on SomaSimple is invalid. The postural attitude that a patient presents gives us so much information about the nature of a person's dysfunction, as well as their pain. While somewhat ignorant of the principles of neural tension, surely posture plays a part in your evaluative methods? Can a person, with wildly asymmetrical posture, represent a balanced individual from a neuro perspective? Quite possibly this is a crucial break point between MFR and neuro approaches. Quite possibly, this is what newcomers to this site will see. Dismissing another's views, whether due to credibility issues from the viewer, or from believing a deceptive reporter's opinion on the illegality of a work, I beleive is wrong.

Barrett, there is a certain irony in the fact that you quoted Planck

Major advances in science occur not because the proponents of the established view are forced by the weight of evidence to change their minds, but because they retire and eventually die!

John recites this quote in nearly every introductory seminar. Science changes slowly.

So, no, I am not anxious that others will read the MFR thread. Some will be repelled from the work, others will be drawn to it. Still others will not see the controversy. This apathy of the final group, I believe, is what you, Barrett, were talking about when you commented on how few of your students students show up here. There are many therapists who are not passionate about what they do. We, I believe, are passionate. Differences aside, we are passionate. Maybe that is what Simple Contact needs. Your self-deprecation might be a detriment to your teaching. Enthusiasts want a positive image to follow, not like a cult, but to see a positive outcome. As you know, I've not taken one of your seminars, but is this what you are teaching? Most of us operate well within our comfort zones, seldom moving off to the edges (dare I say the word...into chaos?). This thread, as many others of yours in the past, dwell on how others seem to pay you no mind, and you are comfortable with this. Despite all that has been said, I truly think that your work has merit. Treat it as such...though I still think you could stand a good unwinding.

Walt

[EricM]

I hope I can add myself to the list of the unusually curious/immune younguns. I was always conscious of there being a 'hole in therapy' but was unable to define it until reading Barrett's and others writings. Perhaps I was standing on the edge of the hole not yet ready to jump in, whereas many others do so without checking to see how deep it is. I can imagine that once in the hole looking up at the sky, its impossible to see anything beyond its edges.

Eric

[Walt Fritz]

Eric,
Welcome to the wide space of views.
Walt

[Jon Newman]

You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into... the Liminal Zone.

[Walt Fritz]

I can't quite get the cadence down that Rod Serling had!
Walt

[EricM]

In case I wasn't clear, I still prefer to look at the scenery around me than stare up into the sun. That's a sure way to premature blindness.

eric

[Luke Rickards]

Chris, that must be incredibly frustrating! Thankfully, I don't have those constraints and am free to work however I choose.

Keep on truckin',
Luke

[JaneS]

I agree that physiotherapy should be secular and science congruent, but as the EBM debate shows, it is still possible to fall into the whirlpool on the basis of rigidity of thought. We have to be careful and check that the anitviral software installed in our minds isn't effective to the point that we consider nothing else.

Nari

I quite agree with you here. I sometimes feel that EBM can also be a 'faith' . By this I mean I hear people saying 'According to EBM or According to scientific evidence ......'
The question to ask is 'How much do you know about how the evidence was gathered and interpreted?' This is not to decry EBM - or say it is useless. However, I have often noticed in studies in pain research a number of exclusions which are clearly to reduce counfounding factors. However, it can also cut the number of potential patients to whom the study is relevant. Known psychiatric illness is one I most often see listed as an exclusion.

The other concern relates to the statistical interpretation. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and loss of subjects in follow-up are 2 possible grey areas. Sometimes they are correctly dealt with - and sometimes not.

When it comes to accepting anything based on scientific research - or rejecting ideas for which there doesn't seem to be strong enough evidence - it puts us gravely in the 'faith' category. For all those clinicians who spend a lot of time reading and updating their knowledge, there are a lot who say ' I can't find the time to read more than the abstracts'

Conclusion; Moderation in all things!

Jane