Another reason therapists don't know

[Evanthis Raftopoulos]

about 'defensibility'
One could also argue (IMO) that whatever 'feels good' to the patient at the moment is the most defensible method. This may include needling, deep tissue massage, hvlat, and other interventions that some people here may not find defensible. In the spectrum/context of what 'feels good' for one patient, it is possible that DNM and SC actually come last and therefore are the least defensible. I think context is everything when we are talking about 'defensibility', and I also think that we all have slightly different ideas of what the context that establishes optimal and defensible care is.

[Evanthis Raftopoulos]

Why would it become difficult to become aware of it? It's our plan of it that makes it without volition. Not our awareness of it.

Consider the tells in poker.

Hi Barrett, how I understand ideomotion is that the moment we become aware of the movement, then it stops being ideomotion and it's something different. How I also understand Carpenter's definition is that unless someone points it out, then there is no capacity for one to become aware of their ideomotion.

How do you differentiate ideomotion from any movement that we are not focally aware?

[Barrett Dorko]

There is always this argument regarding "what feels good" but I don't happen to be under the impression that correction, and thus, a decrease in nociceptive input is always a painless process.

[Barrett Dorko]

Evanthis says:

...how I understand ideomotion is that the moment we become aware of the movement, then it stops being ideomotion and it's something different. How I also understand Carpenter's definition is that unless someone points it out, then there is no capacity for one to become aware of their ideomotion.

I've never understood it that way. Since when does our awareness of something transform it into something we're doing without volition?

[Jo Bowyer]

Jo, you provided with two links about ideomotion, but I’m not sure how that answers my questions. Are you arguing that any movement that is not in focal awareness is ideomotion? Are you also arguing that we can become aware of our ideomotion if we choose to do so?

In response to the first question, I would say no. I gave an example elsewhere of a surgeon who operated on autopilot unless he became aware of anomalies and I wouldn't call that ideomotion. Manual skills can become hardwired so that there is less use of the prefrontal cortex when it is not needed.

Sticking with the surgical analogy, the da Vinci surgical robot has been engineered so as to take out intention tremor in the hands of the surgeon, it appears to eliminate some of the ideomotoric movements as well. I am not good at threading needles but had no trouble doing it fluently when playing with a da Vinci.

In answer to your second question I would speculate that becoming aware of our own ideomotion probably changes what is happening in the moment of awareness and thereafter due to attempts to analyse and possibly play about with it. My treatment sessions in front of mirrors were not amongst my better efforts

Most of what I have read about ideomotion is that which has been written about here. It wasn't until a patient gave me a copy of one of Barrett's articles that I realised that what I had been working with all those years had a name.

Stuart Korth the British osteopath uses it but would probably kill me if I accused him of it, as do those who break horses using the gentler methods. I would love to see some research but doubt that it will happen during my lifetime. Most of those who use it haven't thought as deeply as Barrett about it and it wouldn't be in their interests to do so.

[nari]

..how I read this is that you are at odds then with the whole concept of ideomotion.

The way I read this is you seem to be confused about what is a very simple idea and maybe you are being over-intellectual about its origins and place in therapy.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

It's nice to hear that the problem here might be a lack of simplification. I suspected that but haven't been able to articulate it.

I'm working on it.

I guess that means I'm thinking about it.

[Barrett Dorko]

Blaise,

I really think you've got this wrong. First of all, complexity does not equal complicated.

I'd hate to see an understanding and explanation of Simple Contact and ideomotion lumped in with that long list. The premise is much stronger than that.

Isn't it?

[Jo Bowyer]

Name your woo. The list is long.

I beginning to think I should have followed Groucho Marx's example.

I hope you don't, I don't have any other name but ideomotion for my woo and am only beginning to scratch the surface of my understanding of it. Research is unlikely for the foreseeable future and there is no debate without opposition.

[Barrett Dorko]

I've stated my premise and never gotten any push back. As far as I know, no one else has.

Doesn't that mean anything?

[PatrickL]

Barrett, your premise is that we are self corrective... ie we move non consciously to resolve mechanical deformation of nervous tissue. You also argue that the process of self correction is easily suppressed by the surrounding culture.

If the process of self correction is so easily suppressed, doesn't it stand to reason that we are not self corrective?

[John W]

"Easily suppressed?" I think that grossly understates the power of the culture.


John Ware, PT, FAAOMPT

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PatrickL]

And??? I mean, so what! The culture's influence can be as weak or as strong as you like... If it suppresses the process of "self correction", it stands to reason that we are not self corrective, no?

[Barrett Dorko]

Patrick says, well, asks:

...doesn't it stand to reason that we are not self corrective?

Because the completion of the motion is easily suppressed?

If I let go of you after having twisted some part don't you resolve the deformation? Don't small children undergo enculturation?

[PatrickL]

Patrick says, well, asks:

Quote:
...doesn't it stand to reason that we are not self corrective?
Because the completion of the motion is easily suppressed?

not just the completion of movement. I'd argue cultural influences can impact withdrawal, protection and resolution.

If I let go of you after having twisted some part don't you resolve the deformation

Yes, probably, depending on the context of the situation

Don't small children undergo enculturation?

Yes. And if that process suppresses the process of correction, then it stands to reason that we are not self corrective... ie some sort of external influence, whether it be education, emotional support or manual contact, or some combination of influences is required for correction.