Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[Diane]

Will someone please tell me which of Damasio's books is under discussion?

[Barrett Dorko]

Pretty weak Walt.

Jon's got it right. Encouraging "memories" from patients is criminal and that was determined repeatedly in the 90s. Not by me, by the courts. If you don't think this causes harm to families I don't know what planet you're living on.

Claiming you don't do this isn't the best idea you've ever had considering the record generated on the chat line to say nothing of Dottie's blog. Are we supposed to forget that exists? Are we supposed to ignore your continued assertions that the fascia holds memories that must be "released"? How do you expect to hold on to your core theory of dysfunction while simutaneously denying that you do anything about it? The ground beneath me is quite firm. I suspect you know this.

I read Barnes' book and listen to his students and then I watch Jerry Springer. Somehow I see a continium, so shoot me. Maybe I should say Oprah Winfrey...Nah, just doesn't work.

The last paragraph of your post sets a new standard of some sort-and I don't mean clarity.

[nari]

It's a bit hard to work out, but I note that Walt made a reference to Damasio's The Feeling of what Happens and the sole review to show that he (Damasio) did not know what he was talking about. There may have been other reviews that disagreed, that is what science is about, but Walt mentioned only one review.

Funny thing about your posts, Walt. I have to read them a number of times to try and work out what you are really saying; I must be uneducated after all.


Nari

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
If the Memory Wars article you are refferring to is the one by E. Loftus

http://www.science-spirit.org/printe...article_id=403

you've gone even farther off base than I originally thought. If not the correct article, let me know. I'll comment once I'm sure this is the one you have kept sending me to.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

It's not the same one though Loftus' conclusions about the nature of memory and the danger of trusting it appear in both.

I don't think arguing with Dr. Loftus on this subject is a good idea, but that's just me.

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
Thanks for the warning, but I'm not arguing with Dr. Loftus, I'm arguing with you. Her article is about false memories or beliefs being planted (her words) in the mind. No arguing with this. Reading through her article, I see reference after reference of psychotherapists "planting" information to achieve an outcome. Manipulating a patient into believing something that did not occur is what she is talking about. See also :http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftu...2003Nature.pdf

If this information is what you have based years of criticism of MFR and John Barnes, you should be ashamed of yourself. Please, by all means, invite your students here. Have them read these articles. Try to connect what Dr. Loftus is saying about false memories to how we "plant" memories in unsuspecting patients. Let them read the chat line posts that you've saved for just this purpose. Whatever it is, whether bitterness, jealosy, or simple anger over not being heard, if you believe that Loftus' writing links MFR to the planting of false memories, you have wasted a huge chunk of your life.

Pretty weak, Barrett.

Walt

[Walt Fritz]

Or, more precisely, your reading of Loftus' work and finding MFR in there, is the perfect example of viewing life through one's filters.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

Now you're characterizing my life as wasted and telling me I should be ashamed of myself. You're speculation regarding my supposed bitterness and jealousy is simply insulting. No doubt I'm angry and rightfully so. I've never denied that.

Actually reading the whole of Loftus' work makes it clear that therapists don't just "plant" memories for reasons of their own, they commonly "encourage" memory, often subtly and to great effect without any clear understanding of how dangerous this practice is. How on earth would this sort of thing be avoided as an MFR therapist explains the "memory in the fascia" bit? Do you keep this thinking a secret from the patient?

The list of unanswered questions grows ever longer.

[Walt Fritz]

So, lets speak completely hypothetically for a bit. Are you saying that any and every memory of a previously unremembered injury or trauma that is voiced by a patient is an automatic indication of criminal intent/action on the part of the therapist?

Walt

[Jon Newman]

Hi Walt,

I don't see that indicated anywhere. I'd say no.

Now my turn to ask a question (or throw it on the "unanswered" list). Is it a basic tenet of MFR that memories stored in the fascia must be released in order to restore proper function?

[Barrett Dorko]

"Recovered" memory is the issue here and always has been. Dottie's blog is a wonderful example of that. You can avoid mentioning it all you want-it remains perfectly relevant here.

I assume since you never before read anything about this and you have taught 50 courses with Barnes that your ignorance of this issue is common among his students as well. Perhaps Barnes himself knows nothing of this. Considering the mountain of writing surrounding the issue, now present for over a decade, I find this inexcusable.

Therapists needn't "intend" to act criminally in order to do great harm. Their intent probably doesn't make any difference to the family or the judge after the fact either. All that is needed is ignorance and there seems to plenty of that here.

[Jon Newman]

Wait music while Walt gets a consensus answer to my question.

[Walt Fritz]

Funny, Jon,

Difference in opinion between Jon and barrett, OK.

Barrett, you are quite vague in your answer. So, as the person who has covered this topic of vital concern for the past few decades, please specifically quote something that directly connects a memory coming up in a session to being a criminal act. Vaguely citing Loftus' writings as "proof" is weak. Of course, I'm sure you are more well read than me. Your condescension is dripping again, Barrett.

Walt

[Jon Newman]

Thanks Walt, but it's not as funny (weird, not ha ha) as you avoiding the question (again) as if you're admitting something you don't want to and then turning around and teaching it the next gig you have.

[bernard]

Walt,

That's true you didn't said it clearly.
http://www.somasimple.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=46

I just tried to search on PubMed

"memory fascia" => 31 results.
"memory brain" => 31,979 results.

How is it possible that these researchers are so wrong?

and on google
"memory fascia" => 528,000
"memory brain" => 30,900,000

Brain wins.