Postural Restoration

[Diane]

Nari and Jon are right about the driving force behind this whole site being dissatisfaction with status quo in PT.

Meanwhile, there is something here for everyone of every PT persuasion, from the regular sorts of how-do-I-do-this clinical questions a beginner might have, to ponderings about why this is so or that patient presents thus from more experienced practitioners, to these deconstruction discussions that are highly valuable if there is to ever be movement forward.

"Think, reason, read, practice, contemplate, learn, change, share and start again every time with every patient" is a very good summary; and I would add, "and with each other." I think the ones who just come to read are getting their neurons wiggled beyond just the basics of patient management that other boards are content to stick with. We are here to challenge, definitely. We are here to drop these memes as thick, fast, and from as many different angles as we possibly can. We have nothing to lose but lazy mental habits, rust that has accumulated over time on our thought processes, and practice habits/systems of treatment that are based on ignorance, routine and are way too heavy on patients' ectoderm.

[Nick]

It deserves reiteration here that Barrett, Diane, Jon, Nari, and many others share their clinical insights, ideas, and even techniques to a degree, far more than any other "expert" practitioners who insist that you must "take the course" in order to possibly understand what they have to say and, of course, what to do. The SomaSimplers offer everything they have gleaned from years of practice, study, and thoughtful reflection for FREE. Anyone who cannot see the value in this is cognitively challenged or willfully blind. Many have invested far too much in learning and teaching the profession's memes to consider that they ought to alter their practice.

I've said before that, while I am very grateful for David Butler's work, I was almost stunned on his course when he said over and over again that this information did not mean you needed to change your practice, just add another tool to your toolbox (for many it is the tool that you use after all the joint popping fails). For any of you who have been on Barrett's course, you know that this is NOT his position. How dare he claim that new information may mean someone's practice should change! Or worse yet, their thinking! Is it hard to see which approach would be more popular? Thankfully, Barrett's mission is not to win a popularity contest.

My first stop after taking Barrett's course about 5 years ago was the bookstore. I could not wait to read more about what he had spoken of. His (and many others' here) accessibility in the form of writing, web discussions, and e-mail correspondence has helped me learn more in an hour's visit to this site than I could learn from years of taking the multi-level courses of manipulative therapists, myofascial releasers, postural restorers, spine stabilizers, etc. I can only surmise that those who don't wish to stay here would simply prefer to learn something that does not challenge their illusions.

Nick

[nari]

Nick,

Your comments about David Butler surprise me. I think he is saying different things to different countries in his travels.
I have done two of his courses, and both strongly implied a change is needed away from the standard zapping (electro), measuring, exercising, pummelling and so on. There was never a hint of 'adding this to the toolbox'; in fact, quite a few PTs in the class felt his work was so radical they weren't sure they could 'drop' so many much loved traditions. Perhaps in his own country he understands the clinical ethic, but overseas, as a visitor, he has to be careful not to upset any traditional views that whatever works or what was taught in school is OK....I don't know. He was openly critical of mindless exercises, any sort of machine that pings, and treating by rote.

I think you are quite accurate in your last sentence, re "challenging of illusions". Nobody wants their comfort zone rattled; many PTs have made themselves a comfortable hole in the ground and operate happily in and out of that hole. To make it bigger and throw away junk, and maybe find another hole is just too difficult. We are creatures of habit. Barrett certainly threatens comfort zones; I found David did as well, leaving half the class/es thinking: What the hell was that??? It's too difficult/complex/unnecessary etc . And I would say that David's impact on changing attitudes re gaining new holes has been minimal here as well. Sadly....

Nari

[Jason Silvernail]

Well, first of all I want to say that like Barrett, I appreciate Randy's effort here, and I think there is a lot of truth in his observations. I also believe his intent is really to help these ideas catch on, and not to attack the way the board runs.

I think that there are some unwritten requirements of someone here, things that must be true of them in order for them to find real value here. Note those of us posting welcome everyone, but clearly, very few stay.

1. Must have a deep and usually unspoken dissatisfaction with either their current practice, or the practice that surrounds them.
2. Must have a feeling that much of what is taught in schools and in CEU courses simply does not make sense or is irrelevant
3. Must have some training in several different ways of manipulating or changing the mesoderm and found them wanting
4. Must be self-reflective about their practice and willing to persist in a place that is quite uncomfortable in the absence of a degree of neuroscience knowledge. I will admit that my education in this regard is still lacking, and several of these discussions simply leave me behind. However, this does not bother me, but I know some people are challenged/frightened by that.

I think without these basic criteria (and let's admit these aren't all that common either inside or outside the profession), someone is unlikely to stay. Not that they're not welcome, but they won't stay.
Just a thought.

MAJ Silvernail. (got promoted finally last friday, thought I would flaunt it.)

[Jon Newman]

Steely Dan was right (as well as Jason). Any major dude will tell you.

[Barrett Dorko]

Jason,

Congrats on the, uh, majorship, majordom - whatever. I'm quite certain you've earned it. Re. A Few Good Men

I've thought about your criteria and agree. I feel though that the first three are very commonly posessed by our colleagues. It's that fourth one describing self-reflection and a willingness to walk into so much uncertainty that keeps most away from here. At least, that's what I see.

Here's one ; The mesoderm might very well be a hard mountain to climb requiring effort and dedication, but there are plenty of firm hand holds along the way. When you follow the map and reach the top most of your colleagues will "look up" to you.

Ectoderm is slippery. It's an ice pond with unexpected and hidden places where it grows thin and unstable. You navigate this at your peril, not with effort so much as with careful awareness and the expectation of occasional collapse. There is no map. Having gotten across some portion of it you don't find yourself "above" your colleagues but, rather, off to one side. Often way off. We're trying to wave people over here.

No wonder they don't come.

[nari]

Jason,

Congrats to you, too.

I think your four points are perfectly reasonable; which suggests that no matter what and how we type in a post, many won't stay.
A fifth point to consider is the number of PTs who seem to be uninterested in pain, and concentrate on restoration of function, as though the pain will just go away of its own accord once function is restored; as though pain is just a pesky symptom of mesodermal imperfections. This backwards-thinking, the outside-in approach has a widespread grip on the profession; and safety is in numbers....

Randy,

I appreciate your posts, too. Keep them coming.

Nari

[Diane]

Congratulations Jason.

Barrett, you mentioned that working with ectoderm uppermost was like "a willingness to walk into so much uncertainty" etc..

I like your metaphor but like mine too: the one that persistently comes to my mind is this:
1. The living conscious human organism is an ocean of surface and all that is under that surface, currents and live creatures.

2. The mesodermal treatment systems are like docks and piers out into it. These docks and piers are expensive real estate, with lots of "shops" set up, gates to access to view the water or dangle feet into it, learn about sailing or diving, to rent little boats or jetskis or diving suits to go have a look, protected by life jackets and oxygen tanks, very artificial, very protective and protected, expensive to acquire; lots of rules and regs surrounding useage. Never really getting the "feel" of the ocean or encountering it on its own terms.

3. The medical profession has fleets of ships for getting around on it, or for submarining. They hardly ever get wet.

4. By contrast, ectodermal therapists simply wade out from shore. The beach slopes right down into the sea, and ectodermal therapists will have explored all the areas, know where the sharp rocks are, the riptides, where the sharks usually are to be found, the octopi, the sting rays, the sand bars, the islands.. coral reefs, small bits of dazzling beauty, wafting seaweed..

Ectodermal therapists will get the "feel" of ocean against their own bodies/hands. They will know the cold and warm currents, the nibbles of the curious fish. They will be adapted to taking long deep breaths and staying under for prolonged periods of time, looking for pearls of pain relief. Generally they will stay away from the noisy bustle of the docks in favor of the quiet tidal pools where way more real action, real life can be found.

And ectodermal therapists have adapted to swimming long distances in open ocean. Embryology and evolution can give one flippers and water wings to make the swimming more efficient. Occasionally one bumps into other creatures out there who, while they can swim quite well, don't care to learn much about the ocean (pseudoscience therapists of various stripes). Of course, one finds many of those up on the docks and piers too, colonizing it even, squawking loudly and fighting over scraps, or living just beneath, interested in blood sucking only.

[Randy Dixon]

Jason, dude, you're like a major vegetarian now.

Sorry, that was the best major joke I could come up with on short notice.

I certainly wasn't trying to tell anyone how to act or write on this forum, I'm glad it wasn't taken that way. I saw it as an IF-THEN equation. IF you wanted more participation THEN... There are only "soft" answers to a question like this, no hard data that can be manipulated to give an answer. I used my observations and perspective, others will be different. The point of view of those who choose to remain here is well represented, but not those of those who don't. I try to understand theirs as well. We know the reasons we stay, it doesn't follow that the reasons they leave are opposite.

I agree with Jason's requirements and I like Barrett's mountain climbing analogy, but what I see in both of these is a description of a personality type, one that values introspection, lack of hierarchy, comfortableness with intellectual uncertainty etc. These are personality traits that I would wager we all share to quite a high degree. The question I have then is, what about those who don't share these traits?

Ok, I think this should be the last post from me on this topic.

For at least a week.

[Bas Asselbergs]

Randy, first: I was being sarcastic about what was "missing" in Barrett's instructional work....
Second, your question about those who don't share the personality traits: I am not sure it is personality alone. I think it is also a issue of what people get out of their life experiences - their learning curve from what life throws at them. Bear with me: it took a few major events in my personal life to shake me loose from my comfortable coccoon of certainty and "i don't need to change" attitude - I admit, I was a slow learner and needed quite a few strong jolts to become less certain and more comfortable with an attitude to question almost everything I took for granted. This series of events was as important to my professional practice as it was for me personally - I can't speak for the others here, but I expect some will have the same experience. Something that humbles us to the core.
At least, that is what I think is an additional aspect to Jason's points.

[Jon Newman]

From Martin Seligman's book Authentic Happiness

Muscle physiology distinguishes between tonic activity (the baseline of electrical activity when the muscle is idling) and phasic activity (the burst of electrical activity when the muscle is challenged and contracts). Most of psychology is about tonic activity; introversion, high IQ, depression, and anger, for example, are all measured in the absence of any real-world challenge, and the hope of the psychometrician is to predict what a person will actually do when confronted with a phasic challenge. How well do tonic measures fare? Does a high IQ predict a truly canny response to a customer saying no? How well does tonic depression predict collapse when a person is fired? "Moderately well, but imperfectly" is the best general answer. Psychology as usual predicts many of the cases, but there are huge numbers of high-IQ people who fail, and another huge number of low-IQ people who succeed when life challenges them to do something actually intelligent in the world. The reason for all these errors is that tonic measures are only moderate predictors of phasic action. I call this imperfection the Harry Truman effect. Truman, after an undistinguished life, to almost everyone's surprise rose to the occasion when FDR died and ended up becoming one of the great presidents.

How well will Jason's list predict participation here? If I try to invoke the Anna Karenina principle I'd suggest that those who participate here are all alike and non-participants are non-participants in their own unique way. Maybe that last comment was moderately predictable.

[Barrett Dorko]

My favorite writer is Sarah Vowell. Understand, I have about twenty “favorite” writers. Lately I’ve been listening to the podcast of her book The Partly Cloudy Patriot, which I read a couple of years ago.

In the chapter titled “The Nerd Voice” she speaks at length about her natural inclination “to go too far and care too much about a subject.” She says, “Geeks tend to be focused on very narrow fields of endeavor…and tend to be generally dismissed by society because their passions are viewed as trivial by those people who ‘see the big picture.’ (But) geeks understand that the big picture is pixilated and their high level of contribution in small areas grows the picture.” Here I’m paraphrasing: “The Internet is the first place to treat nerds with respect. The Internet is the nerd Israel, a place to speak and listen to spectacularly specific concerns.”

I commonly find like-minded therapists who share all of the qualities that Jason has listed. What they lack is the willingness, compulsion, courage or nerdiness necessary to put their words on the Internet. They aren’t geeky or dorky enough (how’s that for some irony?) to boldly display their esoteric and possibly boring insights publicly. Given the opportunity to choose the subject of conversation they will stick with the weather and not existentialism. They know about the latter but are worried about “looking too smart.” In our culture intellect is made fun of first and foremost. Personally, I’m through caring about that. This only took me about 40 years.

I always say at some point to my classes that lecturing “allows me unleash my inner nerd” knowing full well that my nerd is not so “inner.” Here, my nerd is my outer, and it allows me to corrupt slightly (without hesitation) a line from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirate’s of Penzance when speaking of Jason: He is the very model of a modern Major-Therapist.

So there.

[Randy Dixon]

For those who consider themselves to nerdy to exist comfortably in the normal world I suggest the book "Geeks" by Jon Katz. It is the story of two geeks, raised in a conservative, small town in Idaho, and how they are saved by the Internet.

[Diane]

Your post #132 made my day B. I love the idea that geeks see a "pixilated" world and like to go deep rather than broad... I feel akin to geeks that way. The internet (besides being an ectodermal therapist that is) has become one of the only things on the planet that hasn't managed to bore me to death.

[Barrett Dorko]

Diane,

Glad to hear this. You especially must get Vowell's The Partly Cloudy Patriot. The chapter about Canadians titled "Cowboys v. Mounties" begins, "Canada haunts me." It seems written specifically for you.