Postural Restoration

[Randy Dixon]

I did not contend that anyone person here was arrogant, but rather the collective group conveys an I'm right, you're wrong connotation in their communications in this thread and others. I have stuck around this long because I understand that this process is important to advancement of the profession. I guess I am asking this group to be as introspective with the same level of criticism as they of others. -Raulan


I can only say Raulan, that you are not the first to make this observation and apparently not the last. I guess some habits just die too hard.

[Bas Asselbergs]

Raulan, thanks for that link about the evaluation techniques. I don't see anything different from other manual evaluation "paradigms" - similar if not the same as: cranial osteopathy, orthopaedic manual assessment, even the TMJ eval is right out of well-established techniques taught for many years by Mariano Rocabado PT. None of which shed any light on the validity of the testing for asymmetry and the principles of "restoration" of symmetry.

"Mr. Hruska did not have pre-concieved notions. He has many years of experience and through disciplined observation, and dilligent research internationally, he described manifestations of neuro-muscluar patterns, in way that has not been described before. "
This is a strong claim: almost everything I have seen of PR so far, is a re-naming and re-packaging of previous ideas: Sharmann, even as far back as Vladimir Janda (pseudo-paresis of muscles in adaptive patterns), Rocabado, osteopathy, Neuromuscular Therapy (St. John) etc etc. I take some exception to the idea that this re-packaging is groundbreaking work and that it will stand the test of time.
But I guess I am not surprised.
I am out of this thread - we seem to be communicating with different ground rules.

[Barrett Dorko]

Put the word "arrogant" into the Microsoft Word processor and then ask for synonyms - every word is an insult. I fail to see how telling us that the whole group of regular contributors here conveys arrogance is any better than picking out an individual. In any case, "I'm right and you're wrong" is precisely the sort of thing said commonly in any scientific pursuit. This isn't arrogance, it's careful inquiry - something this board is dedicated to.

It appears Raulan that you are quite often wrong and I don't know why this shouldn't be pointed out each time. I'm with Bas when it comes to the repackaging of other's ideas, and many of these ideas have been proven wrong the past few years. Calling them by a different name doesn't do much more than delay slightly that revelation.

[Jason Silvernail]

Seem familiar???

Randy said it's not the first nor the last time people have leveled that accusation at this group. Interestingly, the folks on Evidence in Motion have had the same experience.

I find it's much more convenient for people to assume the questioners are "arrogant" than to actually address their concerns. This is a very familiar situation, and you really know your profession is full of psuedo-scientists when strident debate and questioning is characterized as arrogance. Give me a break. Why is it every time I have a showdown with someone who can't back up their claims that it always degenerates into them calling me or my group arrogant or unfair? It has happened on several forums now, to include RehabEdge, Evidence in Motion, and now Soma Simple.

I have found that true scientists will be up front and honest and reflective about what they do, and be willing to address ANY question directed at them about their practice. This is true of the people on EIM and it is true of those here. Perhaps that's why these groups get attacked so strongly, the other participants in the debate simply have no recourse. Hopelessly outgunned from a scientific and argumentative standpoint, they retreat with unfounded accusations and ad hominem attacks. Well, I guess that makes sense. They've got nothing else left.

Our professions need MORE of this type of strong debate and questioning, not less. The "tea party" atmosphere in therapy is contributing to a dangerous level of complacency and our scientific background and care of our patients hangs in the balance.
But I guess that's just my "arrogance" showing through again...

J

[Diane]

Ditto Jason.

What is it about a group of therapists challenging thought processes and questioning fundamental biological underpinnings of treatment concepts that deserves the epithet "arrogant"? Surely deconstruction and finding/studying/learning deep models of the human organism should be embraced by every member of a profession that considers itself "scientific".. or are we all wrong about that?

[Jon Newman]

So far two ploys have now been attempted by Raulan. First, call those leveling critical questioning arrogant. And now this one

Have you considered that when you spend so much time trying to deconstruct a theory that you unintentionally give more validity to that school of thought that it deserves?

Both of these have the flavor of asking us to shut up.

I would like to think that just because a "theory" has been around a long time that it is because it is valid but it just isn't so. Subluxation theory is one example. I think Webster Riggs, Jr., author of The you you don't know sums it up quite well when he states:

It is difficult to argue with believers in astrology. They look at you in all seriousness and state, "I have been studying astrology for many years and know astrology and its powers, just like you went to medical school and studied medicine. I don't attempt to give medical opinions and you should likewise not give an opinion about the validity of astrology because you haven't studied it for many years like I have." Bunk, studied for many years, remains bunk.

So the theory will always exist as long is there is language. The real question, to me, is how many minds will the "theory" (accurate or not) occupy and drive subsequent behavior?

[nari]

I've been considering this perception of arrogance for months, and the last two posts clinched it; the word 'astrology'....

Aren't we really talking about a perceived clash of beliefs? Astrologers take their beliefs seriously, or at least half-seriously, and can point to many instances of 'prophecy' where in actual fact sheer coincidence is the reason for an event, and this can be proved any number of times with probablility theory.
But astrologists don't want to know about probability theory; it ruins their enjoyment of a mystery. Richard Dawkins spells this out beautifully in his Unweaving the Rainbow.

Followers of a method in which the science is dodgy, want a bit of mystery, perhaps. It flavours their need for being unique amongst so many others. They in turn, want to dissect, a little, other 'beliefs', including ours.
But we try to unweave their rainbow.

It does appear that many, many PTs do not see themselves pursuing any sort of scientific route to establish their clinical practice. It seems unnecessary. Their rainbow is strong, and results are good...who needs to read Wall or Ramachandran? And, if others come along and start to unweave their rainbow...well, that's not nice; and are their beliefs any better than ours, after all....and who are they to decline a visit to our rainbow...

Beliefs are a problem, even though we need some.

Nari

[Diane]

If I could write the rules of this PT board, for PT in general, they would be based on the following:

Any profession that stifles internal/intrinsic debate will eventually croak under its own weight. One that regularly applies Occam's razor (chainsaw?) to itself will thrive.

The board is here to be a venue for lively, robust discussion. Pouting, posturing, pomposity are all discouraged. Civil tongues are encouraged, are more than welcome, but remember actual tissue damage is impossible and that virtual skin grows back quickly. Profanity will be deleted. Outright personal attack will result in banning. Everyone remember that people sometimes get themselves confused with the ideas they hold dear. They get subjective about things they should be objective about. Others can be quite objective about their own subjectivity.

About ideas: Some ideas hold more absolute objectivity than others regardless of who holds them or how few in number. They are based on wider, deeper, broader logic/sets of proven facts/stronger theories. Other ideas are widely held but flimsy, hastily constructed, and based on nothing but perceptual fantasy handed down by tradition; they deserve to be blown out of the water. Remember, blowing ideas out of the water is not the same as blowing out of the water the people who hold them or who constructed them. Such people are safe, although they may feel slightly ill from the experience. It's ok, it's just temporary. The people who held them should be glad in the long run to let go and adopt increasingly better ideas that may some day help the profession move along. We should all be trying to evolve ourselves as individuals based on updated pain science (which leads to neuroscience, nervous system consideration) coming our way, should we not? Or even old but basic, solid biological science that as an entire PT profession we've never even considered, let alone as individuals?

Generally in science-based professions this sort of differentiation and subsequent evolution is encouraged.
1. This board wants to encourage deeper models of thinking and treatment and reasoning for PT. It wants PT to evolve and establish for itself a tougher kind of mind along with, and in direct ratio, kinder ways of being with patients. In the end, that's why all of us are here, to help our patients get through life as painlessly and least invasively as we can. Isn't it? Learning to think, really think, really think scientifically, might involve minds bumping into one another a bit, so wear a helmet, but please let it be a transparent one that you can clearly see through in all directions.
2. I can think of at least one other good reason to do all this professional mental clutter clearing; so that PT can achieve actual respect among other professions and sciences and not just good-natured let's-humor-them tolerance. Does 3rd millenium life not deserve the best we can offer as treatment professionals and scholars? who use our minds as well as our hands?
3. One more thing; so called "science" or studies that are based on flimsy constructs will be flimsy science. Long term it will end up being mere forgettable filler if it isn't based on deeper models.

Growth hurts, and we don't know how long it's going to take. So let's not grit our teeth; let's relax our jaws, take deep breaths, and push only when necessary. Good thing writing/thinking doesn't take a lot of physical energy.

[Jon Newman]

Another great series of podcasts worth listening to are those of Bill Moyers. There's plenty to listen to and perhaps I'll learn something about asking questions but in the meantime enjoy this quote from one of his guests, Colin McGinn

Tolerating somebody else's beliefs is not failing to criticize them. It's not persecuting them for having those beliefs. That is absolutely important. You should not persecute people for their beliefs. It doesn't mean you can't criticize their beliefs.

[Randy Dixon]

To keep it on track, and not get into another thread about the difference between the content of questioning and manner of questioning.

Raulan,

What differentiates PRI's beliefs about posture and those of Janda, Sahrmann and other posturalists. I don't see any difference other than some specifics and terminology, certainly they strongly influenced your approach.

Bas is correct about the TMJ assessments as well, my wife has finished the advanced TMJ course with Rocabado and is currently doing the online test for Univ. St. Augustine. They look awfully familiar to me.

I agree with you that you were asked to play against a stacked deck, that you met what appeared to be a hostile crowd when you thought you were going to be talking to a friendly convention. These debates/arguments aren't new to this group though, many have been having versions of this same debate for many years. I think they forget that they weren't having these debates with YOU, and that you are not coming into this with the same perspective on the debate as they are. You seem to have entered with the intention of having an open mind. I believe asking someone to share their ideas and then piling on all the reasons they are wrong is not a very productive way of achieving a productive exchange or for that matter convincing others of your views.

There are many other's here though who have a point. Debate shouldn't end or questions soften because it becomes uncomfortable to continue to defend a position or that position becomes untenable. There is a reason that the court system uses an adverserial format, because it cuts to the truth. However, in the civil realm, a trial is a step of last resort, many other forms of mediation are preferable, until we are left only with those things that there can be no agreement upon, or that are irreconciliable. Maybe we need a judge, or at least a mediator. As a start, maybe I can suggest that you (Raulan) should be given a chance to ask any questions that you wish, and that they should be answered before any more are asked of you.

Jason,

You say that the folks at EIM and the people here are both often accused of being arrogant, but in fact they are just determined to trim away the myths and stick to facts. Yet I remember the debate at RehabEdge between the two camps. I didn't see a whole lot of productive trimming. I didn't see any productive anything.

[Randy Dixon]

Damn, I said I wasn't going to do that.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy says: "I believe asking someone to share their ideas and then piling on all the reasons they are wrong is not a very productive way of achieving a productive exchange..."

As long as you think that's true you're going to struggle with scientific discourse.

[Jon Newman]

Randy,

I learned plenty in those debates at RE. Of course, the ad hominem stuff was unhelpful as usual.

I'm not forgetful who I'm having the debate with but I'll admit to a certain impatience on my part. Barrett started off this thread with some tough questions before inviting Ron here so as not to give the impression of being invited to a tea party. Any confusion that the intent of these threads are something other than an attempt to delve into the underpinnings of a treatment approach is hard for me to understand. The invited guest rarely makes an appearance but rather an associate of some sort or another because the chief purveyor is said to be busy with matters of consequence. Then the associate comes on not to say, "Gee, that's a good point and we ought to change that" when presented with a legitimate challenge but rather they are here to persuade. This is a source of my impatience and then the thread takes a turn like this one has.

Raulan and everyone reading but not participating has a chance to ask any question they want or start their own threads. They always have. Also, if there is someone quite skilled at asking tough questions without the person being questioned taking offense then why are they just sitting there reading these threads? Lead by example. But I'll tell you right away, the "sandwich method" loses its affect if you're persistent with the questions that get avoided.

[Jason Silvernail]

Randy-

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful posts.

I really could start a whole new thread about how people here and people on EIM are similar, but I'm not sure it would be helpful. I think they have much more in common than either side realizes, but ultimately each side's spin on evidence is what keeps them apart.
They both are rigorous scientifically, but one side emphasizes theory more and one side emphasizes pragmatic patient outcome based studies more.

While I understand the reasons for both those positions, I find myself happy both places. Must be multiple personality disorder. Or the differences are not that great. Either one.

In the end, sitting in a room and having someone shoot down your ideas and having a fierce conversation is exactly what many people (to include both Barrett and John Childs) want. I see the basic fiber and character of our profession changing in the last few years, taking a decidedly more scientific and challenging turn. I like it.

J

[Mike Terrell]

Raulan,

I have been hanging around this thread for a while, trying to take in both sides. The thread took a wrong turn when the word "arrogant" was brought up. I can see why you would consider "The Usual Suspects" as sounding arrogant, but I do not believe they are so.

You believe you are right; Barrett, Diane, Jason, Jon, etc. believe they are right. When discussing your differing viewpoints, the other side will sound arrogant. Can't be helped when you are willing to stick to your guns. Admirable really.

This type of discussion is necessary, vital and relevant to our daily practice and the profession as a whole. If some get offended along the way, I am ok with that, as long as the process is moving forward.

My point of view? I am on the side of ectoderm and the control system. Have I figured it out yet? Heck no. Will I figure it out? That is my goal.

mike t