Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another reason therapists don't know

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yes, Nathan seems to give vision some sort of special ability to assume reality and/or identify ideomotion.

    This is a HUGE mistake and how he continues to do this astounds me.
    Barrett L. Dorko

    Comment


    • In the graded motor imagery progression, laterality recognition is referred to as "implicit" motor imagery because it is theorized to occur subconsciously and involve only the premotor cortex, which is less likely to produce the patient's pain neurotag, but promotes the pathways in the brain that will eventually produce painless movement of the limb. The next stage is explicit motor imagery, which is achieved by imagining moving the involved limb- obviously a conscious process. Now the motor cortex is engaged, although theoretically not to the extent of actual movements. Mirror therapy in the final stage of GMI further ramps up firing of the motor cortex.

      We may be getting lost a bit here in semantics, but the implicit/explicit distinction has some clarity that I like.
      John Ware, PT
      Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists
      "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson
      “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot
      be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Barrett Dorko View Post
        Yes, Nathan seems to give vision some sort of special ability to assume reality and/or identify ideomotion.

        This is a HUGE mistake and how he continues to do this astounds me.
        I don't even understand this. Are you able to give an answer to questions or speak only to how much those of who are trying to learn, define what we think we know, ask questions, irritate you? And why must you speak to the community as though I am someone at large? You can point your responses directly to me if you want.

        Comment


        • Nathan,

          Your questions have been answered and those you feel haven't been don't really make any sense to me.

          Obviously, I can't satisfy you.

          Maybe someone else can.
          Barrett L. Dorko

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Barrett Dorko View Post
            Nathan,

            Your questions have been answered and those you feel haven't been don't really make any sense to me.

            Obviously, I can't satisfy you.

            Maybe someone else can.
            No, they haven't. I am trying to understand what seems like a contradiction. Overt movement vs non-visable movement.
            Overt movement, being overt, visible is something that a culture at large could suppress or impose limitations on via "authority". Speech is something I consider overt. Parts are moving, words are coming out. Shut your mouth, quite your words.
            The other movement we have discussed is not visible OR EVEN KNOWN TO EXIST to not only to outside observer but not even to the possessor of such movement! How can something that is unseen (therefore essentially inoffensive to a culture) be suppressed?
            And if the instinctive movement is overt as in your youtube videos, how is that movement fundamentally different from a diverse, exploratory exercise regime? Don't the same muscles, tissues, etc. get mobilized?

            How is instinctive different from just playing around in a gym? How is one movement different from the other such that one can change mechanical deformation and the other won't?

            Comment


            • Nathan,

              I am also unsure about these small motions, I've always seen ideomotion qua therapy as a visible phenomenon. That the motion needed for correction is most likely in the range that is visible. Though ideomotion can be imperceptible but I share your skepticism about whether this degree of ideomotion can be culturally suppressed though it might be suppressed contextually.

              I don't agree with your last sentence though. A butt shift is a butt shift no matter how you cut it. It happened.
              I'm not understanding the objection. I never said that it did not occur, but that it can be done in way that is not consciously observed and therefore "invisible". Do you notice every time that you shift your butt?

              And if the instinctive movement is overt as in your youtube videos, how is that movement fundamentally different from a diverse, exploratory exercise regime? Don't the same muscles, tissues, etc. get mobilized?

              How is instinctive different from just playing around in a gym? How is one movement different from the other such that one can change mechanical deformation and the other won't?
              One uses implicit and the other explicit movement. And I don't think anyone is saying that explicit movements can't change mechanical deformation, but that implicit movement can also and possibly better. I would argue that the implicit mind knows better what movement is necessary for correction. A person's explicit mind is concerned with choreographed motions and forms, which may not be what the body needs. Trying to conform movement to a certain form is itself a form of cultural suppression, no?

              Comment


              • One uses implicit and the other explicit movement. And I don't think anyone is saying that explicit movements can't change mechanical deformation, but that implicit movement can also and possibly better. I would argue that the implicit mind knows better what movement is necessary for correction. A person's explicit mind is concerned with choreographed motions and forms, which may not be what the body needs. Trying to conform movement to a certain form is itself a form of cultural suppression, no?
                Yes, I have no issue with that. I agree that a body would know what the best mode for improving itself would be compared to choreographed movements.
                But to take it a step further, I had a gal today who had had shoulder surgery. She demonstrated how she had been working to recover overhead motion in the shoulders. Her ROM was about 125 degrees into flexion. I asked if I could work with her to see if we could access more. With very gentle physical support from me we moved her arms to 180 degrees of flexion. So, where was that intrinsic knowing there? This happened in about half a second. She just didn't "know" she could do it. After speaking to her, my opinion would be that there was no externally imposed restriction on her movement. she just didn't know she could.

                Comment


                • One uses implicit and the other explicit movement. And I don't think anyone is saying that explicit movements can't change mechanical deformation, but that implicit movement can also and possibly better. I would argue that the implicit mind knows better what movement is necessary for correction. A person's explicit mind is concerned with choreographed motions and forms, which may not be what the body needs. Trying to conform movement to a certain form is itself a form of cultural suppression, no?
                  Yes, I have no issue with that. I agree that a body would know what the best mode for improving itself would be compared to choreographed movements.
                  But to take it a step further, I had a gal today who had had shoulder surgery. She demonstrated how she had been working to recover overhead motion in the shoulders. Her ROM was about 125 degrees into flexion. I asked if I could work with her to see if we could access more. With very gentle physical support from me we moved her arms to 180 degrees of flexion. So, where was that intrinsic knowing there? This happened in about half a second. She just didn't "know" she could do it. After speaking to her, my opinion would be that there was no externally imposed restriction on her movement. she just didn't know she could.

                  Comment


                  • "They never post here."

                    Bump... because I hate being moderated...

                    SS has taught me a lot... and for this, I am truly grateful... Critically reading and applying literature relevant to my practice has too. SS is but one way for PTs to learn and suits a certain personality. Many of my former students tell me that they find the tone - yes I said 'tone' - at SS to be not conducive to their learning style... this is okay... SS doesn't work for them... this does not mean that 'they' aren't interested. I agree that we have a long way to go to bring the discipline of PT forward. SS is one way that meets the needs of some... not all. Now, because I have mentioned tone, and just in case someone has a strong desire to post the link to that thread, or engage in a huge debate about communication and senders and receivers, all I am saying is that this is what I hear and the 'tone' or the perception of a negative 'tone' is real to many... you need not agree... but this is a barrier for some.

                    If we want more people here, what do we need to change about ourselves and the way we are trying to bring about change? Clearly, if we after more people posting and discussing here, then the current way is not working...

                    And, for the record, I probably read more science than one might consider healthy... but I don't post here much because I need to go to the gym, have dinner with my wife and kids, ferry my kids to soccer and running every night of the week, work, read, sleep, etc... my silence does not equal disinterest.

                    Back to reading another journal article...

                    Comment


                    • It seems that you equate "disinterest " with an absence of posting. I equate it with an absence of reading, learning, caring about your work or your position as a therapist. I equate it with an absence of interest in scientific investigation. "That's over my head" is something I've heard more than once as an excuse used by those who are treating MY patients.

                      The point of my first post in this thread was that many will use any excuse not to learn.

                      Now there's talk about what the culture "sees" and suppresses and what it doesn't "see" and therefore cannot suppress. The subtle expression of our desire seems lost on some, but it wouldn't be lost on a con man, detective, magician and a few others. I've sought to get others in my community to see as they do and to use their powers for good.
                      Barrett L. Dorko

                      Comment


                      • Nathan, ideomotion can be visible, and it can be invisible.
                        For correction of sustained mechanical tension to occur, it does not NEED to be visible.
                        Unclench your teeth to speak, to let a held breath out.
                        Does that work as an answer?
                        We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are - Anais Nin

                        I suppose it's easier to believe something than it is to understand it.
                        Cmdr. Chris Hadfield on rise of poor / pseudo science

                        Pain is a conscious correlate of the implicit perception of threat to body tissue - Lorimer Moseley

                        We don't need a body to feel a body. Ronald Melzack

                        Comment


                        • Nathan seems overwhelmed by his ability to see things.

                          The germ theory of disease would never have come about if we only depended upon that.

                          I just don't know what else to say.
                          Barrett L. Dorko

                          Comment


                          • I've been watching the new 'Cosmos' series. Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about our ancestors fasciniation with the stars and finding patterns. As humans we're exceptional at seeing patterns. However, our ancestors made many errors when seeing constellations. Their interpretations were for the most part myths. I see no difference in PTs trying to see patterns in a patients alignment or movement that they can interpret as the cause of pain. These so called pattens that we think we see in alignemnt of the body have led to myths with no scientific support. We need to move on from this false belief.
                            Rob Willcott Physiotherapist

                            Comment


                            • Yes advantage. All I've suggested is that the use of a patient's instinctive ability and tendency to correct in response to pain be added to their movement therapy.

                              If it is NOT used because some favored idea to use what "looks" better is employed instead there are numerous questions that need asking. Many logical fallacies have been used to prop up the support for traditional approaches and, amazingly, they remain.

                              The culture of therapy has not changed despite endless challenges to its power. This is simply because it is more powerful than any challenge.
                              Barrett L. Dorko

                              Comment


                              • Nathan,

                                I think your tilting at a straw man here, one who feels that ideomotion is the only way to get correction and claims that restrictions are only external. That straw man does not exist.

                                In the example you used what do you mean by she did not "know" that she could not move further?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X