Postural Restoration

[Bas Asselbergs]

Barrett, as long as you don't provide a bulletted list of manual technical progression with a strong focus on A) musclelength, B) joint position, or C) posture, you're going to have an uphill battle. Unless you can present techniques that tap into the universal vibrational connection we all share but need lots of help with....
Maybe one other shortcoming of your approach is that you don't spell out what to see, feel, hear or do - AND, to add insult to injury, you don't even tell anyone exactly where and HOW to move!! Now, what are your students to do, for heaven's sake? Think and explore by themselves, with only understanding as tool?
All kidding aside, I am sorry that Olly and Cory 2 have left the building; although I can understand their decision. I would love to see more of the proposed assessment and treatment ideas, and how they justify them scientifically - but like all trademarked courses with advise to "take them to find out what they actually mean" (my interpretation of the "official response of the PR group), I refuse to hold my breath.
And, yes, I will become abrasive at times, when asking pointed questions is considered aggressive, or condescending, or denegrating etc etc. If professionals are set up to take a lot of money to teach an approach, they should be ready and even willing to proudly present the answers to questions about the approach!

Oh well.....I must be getting crankier - I am 54 after all....

[nari]

Don't worry, Bas. Another ten years and you'll wonder why you weren't more philosophical about the whole thing.

But it is true that Barrett does not supply information from A-->Z, so PTs can go back and regurgitate it like cormorants; I recall one course I did many eons ago where everything was written out on sheets: for discs, do A,B,C,D; for facets V,W,X,Y,Z...the only difficulty was that we couldn't remember the order without the sheets...half kidding, but that was how it was. Rote stuff.

Nari

[Jon Newman]

I recently listened to a podcast of Daniel Dennett and during the question and answer part of the podcast he got on to discussing different types of memes. There is the type of meme that is almost embarrassing, like some crazy jingle that you find yourself singing all day long. Then there are things like "the calculus meme" that don't seem to reproduce easily or naturally and they require care and nurturing for their survival. Then he goes on to remind his audience

Every time you say it or read it you make another copy in your brain.

Every time you say it or read it you make another copy in your brain.

Everyone! Every time you say it or read it you make another copy in your brain..

I think "posture" is like a jingle meme and about as useful and neurobiology is like a calculus meme. I know how people feel about calculus so I won't say anything about its usefulness (but it is).

[Diane]

The main calculus meme if I remember correctly (and I may not) is the quadratic equation, a useful mathmatical tool for describing irregular shapes and surfaces; a²+b²+c²=x²-y².
My ectoderm wasn't ready to handle this type of meme in high school and I nearly failed math.. my average was brought down so low I still have the odd bad dream about it. Made it into PT school even with a lowered average though.. later I took Trig/calculus over again (7 years later) in uni for pre med, and my frontal lobes had adapted enough that it sank in rather easily second time round.. missed one little question or the score would have been 100%.

Thoughts, take away points:
1. Some memes like this one, make the brain grow, which is, I suppose why they are introduced in highschool. Other memes (jingle memes) keep the brain locked in a gerbil wheel and dumb it down.
2. The rate of exposure to a difficult meme has to exceed its difficulty or the meme will indeed be lost. Solution: start teaching about ectoderm in highschool. Ok, just kidding about that last part.
3. Difficult memes are less difficult second time round. Graded exposure. Literally. Get graded on how much exposure you've given the meme to your own thought processes. PTs shouldn't be allowed to graduate without passing a basic embryology course.

[Mike Terrell]

I have recently seen the A -> B-> C approach at an MET course. I will say this, it definitely makes therapists feel comfortable. I sensed this in myself. Memorize what different eval findings mean and then perform the appropriate Rx, which you also have had to memorize. This particular course made the material just complicated enough to make you think that it must be the right thing to do and that other courses would certainly be required.

mike t

[Randy Dixon]

I think Bas is right. It is very confusing for a new person to come here and try to understand what Barrett and the others are doing because it goes something like this:

Q: Where should I place my hands.
A: I don't know, wherever they need to be.

Q: What position should the patient be in.
A: Whatever position they like.

Q: So what do I do exactly?
A: Almost nothing. Just place your hands lightly on them and let them move.

You have to admit, that looks pretty evasive and doesn't give someone much to go on. It also seems pretty touchy-feely. It takes a long time for someone to understand the reasoning behind it and most people aren't going to see any reason to devote that time, except of course the possibility of a Cuyahoga Falls cap. People need more of an explanation that is accessible to them, even if providing specifics can actually inhibit understanding. It is like the use of an analogy (or even a simile) to explain a complicated concept. You have to abandon the analogy at some point but its use allows you to get to the next step. Jason's explanation about what he did in "OMG I got it" I think helps a lot of people, there should be a sticky to an explanation like that along with any disclaimers that it is merely an example.

I understand Barretts reluctance to do this. I used to wonder why he tried so hard to prevent giving specific instructions to others, to avoid being a guru, but having recently had some experience with someone who seems to very much like being a guru, I think I now understand some of his reluctance. It almost inevitably leads to a loss of critical thinking, exploration and understanding as well as criticism, perhaps because of this lack of criticism.

If you are serious about reaching more people through this forum then you should also consider more closely the impression presented here. I am a Libertarian, the only thing that ever makes me want to vote Republican is to listen to Democrats talk (my apologies to those outside of the States who may not know the difference). Why? Becasue they constantly talk about the superiority of their ideology (ok) while asserting the reason others don't agree with them is because they are too ignorant, bigoted, or insensitve to understand the issue. Since their goal is to recruit the people who don't currently agree with them this is a poor strategy. A better strategy is to point out where their beliefs and goals overlap and that with only a different viewpoint their beliefs are compatible. This doesn't mean that one can't be relentless and ruthless in pursuit of evidence and facts.

[Diane]

Randy, I think Bas was just being sarcastic, but I also think that you've shone some light into a few corners.. Maybe you would consider being an editor for tone, if we ever write anything, besides these posts I mean. :teeth:

[Diane]

Here is something I just got in an email from my cluey sister. I'll include it for the math humor embedded throughout:

Weapons of Maths Instruction

A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport, as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, Attorney General John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of maths instruction.

"Al-gebra is a problem for us," Ashcroft said. "They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of an absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y', and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval, with coordinates in every country.

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of maths instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."

White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the President.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy writes: "You have to admit, that looks pretty evasive.."

No, I don't have to admit to any such thing. I'm never evasive. The answer is as stated. Dumbing it down, making up an answer that isn't true or otherwise cowtowing to those who don't read or think or come up with any ideas of their own isn't my idea of progessing the discussion. I've used hundreds of analagies as well so their absence is hardly the problem.

Today, as yesterday, the evidence is that PTs don't read - period. No amount of specific reply is going to help that.

You can't make people want what they don't want, simple as that.

[Randy Dixon]

Ok, I was wrong. You don't have to admit it. I'll rephrase it. When most people, including myself, first see this it looks evasive. I'm not saying it IS evasive but that is certainly the impression it gives. The question keeps coming up about how to "get the message out", yet any answer besides, other people just need to read more/get smarter/more inquisitive is rejected. While this may be a solution, it isn't a very useful one from a practical viewpoint and not one that anyone here can control. I can understand if you, and the others on this board, feel you are already at the end of your range in "reaching out" and to go any farther would require you to be less than true to yourselves, I don't have such a great range myself, but it should be seen for what it is, a limitation in this regard, not an insolvable problem.

I admire your work with SC and I respect what you do and what others here share, my observations are not meant as a personal criticism, but if the question is asked about how to make this forum and these concepts more accessible to other people, then I will share my observations and opinions. I think it is obvious that those here are fairly satisfied with the way things are. It is the ones who aren't here, that looked, or maybe even looked and posted, then ran away that have the answers about why they didn't remain. I think the fact that there are thousands of people registered here, that dozens make a post or two, and only a handful remain, shows that there is enough initial interest but that something in the process drives them away. We can either assume that it is something we are doing wrong here or we can place the blame entirely on them. If we choose the latter then we are saying that there is nothing that can be done. I believe both groups carry some of the blame, but we only can control what we do here.

Apparently I also wrote in a way that is easy to misunderstand. I did not suggest that you use more analogy, I used the simile of an analogy to demonstrate how you have to talk to people in a way they can understand. In this case we need to use less analogy and more concrete, observable, actual descriptions and explanations.

I think you can make people want what they don't know they want, but you have to ease them into it, show them why they want it, not just offer it up, take it or leave it.

You may not have any interest in doing that.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy,

I reasonable reply, and you know I appreciate your effort here and the fact that you keep coming back though I commonly snap at you. Remember, I emulate Gregory House M.D. and want one day to communicate as effectively as he does. After all, his ratings are way up this year.

One problem with your last post. Hundreds, not thousands are registered here. I have personally encouraged thousands at this point and the URL goes out to many thousands more through the mailings for my workshop. So far, this effort has resulted in the actual registration (which is the only way to get all kinds of information here) of a number that remains well below fifty.

Apathy? Disinterest? Fear? Slow modems? Kids hogging the computer? These numbers must indicate something. I find it hard to believe that it's mainly the quality or nature or "tone" of the discussion. Nobody is personally attacked or belittled here and if the neurology is always over their head, well, it's nothing a little study wouldn't help. Is that too much to ask of college graduates?

[Diane]

Stop. Here are some numbers. Before Barrett joined us here, we had just under 200 members registered. Since December 2005 when you joined, Barrett, and started a forum, the numbers have more than doubled to about 480 at the moment.

Analysis: about 200 in the first not quite two years, about 280 more in the last 6 months. I'd say the growth rate on the site took a sharp upward incline. We never said we wanted to be the biggest, just the best.

[nari]

I can understand what Randy is getting at - I think. Some of the posts here leave me..well, wondering if English is my first language after all. They are enormously complex, certainly useful, but forbidding to those who may well just be looking for fairly short answers.

This doesn't excuse the need to read up on knowledge missing from their repertoire. Not by any means, but if I had happened onto SS for the first time, I would indeed hesitate to post...the academic level is daunting at times.
And I have been posting, for good or bad, since about 2002 on three forums.
However, the material is such that, if I were a new member, I would follow through and try to make sense of it all. Why? Because I have been dissatisfied with physiotherapy for a long time and felt there had to be a better way to care for patients. That is the big drawcard for this forum and it is not present on other forums.

So if people are quite satisified with the status quo and wish to continue to work on the mesodermal aspect only...they will have a look and probably go away. A new approach can be threatening to some, just unnecessary for others. I doubt if their attitude will ever change.
I think one aim is to attract those who are not quite satisifed with current practices and are motivated enough to learn and read more.
Perhaps we, as a largeish group, can feed into that motivation in a different way, without spoonfeeding. It's worth considering.....

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Hi Randy,

I've been considering your post(s). I think if there is such a thing as an "initial interest" that interest was never about performing a critical review of PT practices or developing a deeper knowledge set about phenomenology and ontology. As such, they are subsequently disappointed by the site. If it was indeed their actual initial interest that quickly became a passing interest, I'd be interested in knowing why. There is a method of forum feedback available but I'm unaware of any significant quantity of feedback from it. This signals indifference more than offense in my opinion.

Also, while we occasionally discuss SC, usually upon someone else bringing it up, it is not the purpose of the site in my opinion. Also, I don't think there is anything in Jason's posts regarding his own revelations that haven't been discussed at some point in recent history (a couple of years). Using light touch and not having lengthy "set up" discussions are not new things but apparently they warrant repeating.

[Barrett Dorko]

Jon,

Right again. If you look at who starts the thread that ends up discussing Simple Contact you'll virtually never find that it's me. Anyway, Simple Contact is just a name I appropriated from Charles Brooks' Sensory Awareness many years ago. I've defined it in my own way but I've never claimed ownership of any sort and never will. If someone else wants to say that they "do" this I will ask, "Do what?" The answer I'll accept will be, "Think, reason, read, practice, contemplate, learn, change, share and start again every time with every patient."

I think I may have just discovered the problem with our growth, Diane's perfectly accurate statements notwithstanding.