Deconstruction of "Z-Health Performance Solutions"

[Bas Asselbergs]

Cory, very well said! And, BTW, having been in a somewhat mellow mood on this thread, and thus having employed little to NO sarcasm - I am still awaiting responses to my questions. Those ones I posted waaay back. There was not one ounce of personal or derogatory tone in that post. Yet, the supporters of the Z-concept decide to to post on the perceived "personal" stuff and choose to forego the chance to really expand on the proposed structure, science and theoretical model of "Z"?

[Jon Newman]

Hi Randy,

I've been telling these guys forever that if they actually want people to hang around and participate that they need to lighten up on the hostility.

Well forever is a pretty long time but you bring up a good point none the less. Not so much the one about hostility but rather the goals of particular threads or even specific posts. It is true that I would like people to hang around and participate but sometimes I'm simply trying to demonstrate a lack of justification for claims. Sometimes I'm trying to gain publicity for my point of view and sometimes my goals are even less proper than that if I reflect on them. I suppose it is wise to remember to clarify one's objectives (at least to one's self) prior to posting but doing so does lose a sense of spontaneity and that seems like a loss to me (for reasons that currently elude me).

I wrote the above comments this morning but didn't post because I was hoping to come to appreciate the reasons that eluded me. Now that I haven't been thinking about it for a while I think I'm a little closer to knowing.

I'd prefer not have people hanging around here because we're such great people and Soma is a place where never a mention of sarcasm or cynicism is uttered. In fact, I'd like to have people hang around despite it; like yourself.

[Diane]

Randy,

Diane, you ask why am I here? Because I was committed to thinking objectively and scientifically long before I came here, even though I didn't always do it well. I think it was partly a matter of aptitude and personality, but I also had it taught to me, nurtured and developed by people I liked and respected and who treated me with respect even when my thoughts didn't deserve the same respect. I wasn't taught this through sarcasm and mockery (ok, I was but I always knew it was good natured). This committment allowed me to remain on this forum when I otherwise would

Then I guess you feel you belong here after all.

the complaint is that others don't have this committment, chasing them away won't give them that.

No one can chase anyone away from here. You have to be a moderator for only about 5 minutes to realize this sad truth. Whoever gets a nose out of joint over any perceived slight and leaves, that's their own business. Really, at age 56, personally I'm past suffering fools gladly and am more than happy when they thin themselves out. I feel no need to coddle anyone over the internet, especially anyone I don't agree with. I'm not going to make virtual submission gestures or human primate social grooming gestures toward anyone whose ideas I find baseless, no matter how cute, young, innocent, naive or cognitively helpless they may be. Seriously, I'm past all of that and I save whatever I still have left for actual patients in actual therapy.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy asks: "...is it your intention here to simply act as a peer review, to have people present their ideas while you critique them, or is it your intention here to teach, learn and share?"

Since when are these mutually exclusive?

All of that is done here, and the often horrified and exasperated response to a little sarcasm is really wearing on me. There are few ways aside from that to convey justified impatience with the non-answers often offered by those who make claims without support. You can't see my face when I grow tired of that and so I have no choice. If you could hear me this wouldn't be necessary.

From what I hear, therapists don't post here because they "don't feel smart enough," not because they're chased away.

What are we supposed to do about that?

[Randy Dixon]

I guess this has become predictable. Once again I will ask, is it your intention here to simply act as a peer review, to have people present their ideas while you critique them, or is it your intention here to teach, learn and share? Because I believe that I read somewhere that the latter is part of the purpose of this forum. Yes, we can be committed to the practice of science and rational thought, this does not REQUIRE alienating everyone who we believe does not share this. We gain no converts, we make no difference if we do this. The only ones who will share or stay are the ones who already share our views on HOW to think. If the goal is to bat around ideas among a group of like minded individuals, while occasionally bumping into a new one who already shares our like mindedness, then this is a fine approach. If the goal is to change the way people think (and maybe just possibly be influenced that we haven't figured it all out yet, even about the HOW to think thing) and to promote scientific thought among others, then it is a crappy approach. Perhaps I'm just confused as to what the goals here are.

Diane, you ask why am I here? Because I was committed to thinking objectively and scientifically long before I came here, even though I didn't always do it well. I think it was partly a matter of aptitude and personality, but I also had it taught to me, nurtured and developed by people I liked and respected and who treated me with respect even when my thoughts didn't deserve the same respect. I wasn't taught this through sarcasm and mockery (ok, I was but I always knew it was good natured). This committment allowed me to remain on this forum when I otherwise would not, but the complaint is that others don't have this committment, chasing them away won't give them that.

[Barrett Dorko]

Yes, Diane and Cory, you're doing it again. And I mean that in a good way.

Another instructor who contracts with Cross Country Education attended one of my classes this week. I had had some previous dealing with her a few years ago when invited to debate the merits of “alternative medicine” in a national magazine (Advance for Physical Therapists). She took the pro and I the con.

This is a pleasant and friendly woman, an academic and clinician, and a strong proponent of her brand of “myofascial release” and, if our debate was any indicator, a big fan of “energetic” medicine. We met civilly and with evident good will and spoke briefly of our mutual experience as teachers with this company. Quite kindly she invited me to lunch though I declined. I don’t eat lunch while teaching – I stay in the room.

I heard not a single objection from this therapist to anything I said. She bought a copy of my book and I signed it for her, she took a copy of a monograph I’ve written titled Manual Magic with her to lunch and returned it without comment. She left early and quietly as I continued to teach.

I can’t help but wonder what she must think but if she doesn’t come here as I had invited her to do I guess I always will wonder. The only clue I have is my observation of the way she casually tossed Manual Magic back on the front table after lunch. To me, the impact was a little loud – but I’m perfectly willing to admit that my own instincts toward dissonance reduction inflated that way beyond its reality. Maybe. I’m almost sure.

Perhaps.

(This entry was also posted to The Power of Dissonance thread)

[Diane]

BB, couldn't agree more.
Re: Randy's first paragraph in post #159, and the "where is the compassion, I've clucked my tongue at these people all along" tone of it, I'd like to point out that therapeutic niceness and politeness is likely what got us the deepest into this boggy morass in the first place, the swamp of erroneous belief, unsupportable treatment construct, and mesodermal bias, out of which grow giant trees of nonsense, treatment systems with deep roots down into the economy, choking out rational thought and real scientific advance of our human primate social grooming professions.

We each wake up one day and realize we have a choice to make - continue playing nice and do nothing, the mental equivalent of living wild and swinging from vine to vine like our primate siblings, OR.... learn to exercise our minds and their capacity to think, sort, discriminate, categorize, make sense, link, develop and strategize a way out of the mental jungle we have found ourselves in. Occam's razor isn't nearly big enough to do the job required in this profession. We need Occam's chainsaw. And when wielding Occam's chainsaw, inevitably some sawdust will get in someone's eye from time to time, or a wood chip hit them on the head, or the roar of the machine itself may sound uncomfortable.

But it's necessary. We mean no one any personal harm. Wear a hard hat and stay out of the way when the big trees topple. We're going to do this, blaze a trail of deconstruction, because we have to find a way for this profession to get itself out to the main road. Don't worry, it's far from being a clearcut.

Personally I'm determined to cut down whatever I need to, and in my tiny backpack I'm salvaging and carrying the essentials of soft kind gentle manual therapy. I get ever more invigorated to the task when more mesodermal bias looms in front of me, blocking my way.

[BB]

At this point we might as well be posting on Barrett's thread of the power of dissonance.

When these discussions happen, every time we go through a post discussion period exactly like this. This is what I observe and think:

The point at which these perceptions arise is when someone feels they've been personally attacked. What is actually attacked is faulty logic in whatever system we happen to be discussing. However, almost universally the defenders of the systems have fallen into the "believe in it" trap. When you make something a belief system, an attack against that system is an attack against you in your mind. I know, trust me. Belief by definition requires faith. Faith is what is used in lack of support or evidence. Lack of evidence or support will be exposed here.

So, at this point the next step in the conversation is for the defender to make a post littered with emotion that takes logic out of the equation even further. These posts are difficult to answer and it is also difficult not to respond with defensive emotion as well. This is after all what we are built to do instinctively.

This is typically when
1) sarcasm begins in place of emotion, a good substitution in my mind considering the alternative.
2) the thread loses usefullness to a large degree. After all, how do you argue with someone who just uses it because they believe in it?

Another, "I've been attacked" perception might be that you feel you are being portrayed as silly or lacking for using this method which is being attacked. This is a bit different than belief, but still involves a personal relationship you've developed with your method. This again prompts emotion for defense.

These are of course just my observations and I'm sure many will disagree, but based on this a few suggestions come to mind:

1) When you think you've been attacked, think hard about whether it is you, or the logic behind the method you are defending that is being attacked.
2) If you still think it is you, think hard about whether you still think this way because it sounds as if you are silly for having used the method. Instead of getting defensive, YOU MUST SUPPLY LOGIC FOR WHY YOU USE THE METHOD. Not results. We've all gotten those with all kinds of approaches. Not anecdote. We can all supply anecdote in the opposite direction. Logic. Sensible, supported if possible. Realize that if your logic has evidence that points out it is not supported we will point this out. You should thank us at this point and not be defensive although it is to be expected, knowing what we know about dissonance theory now.
3) Leave emotion out of your posts if you don't want to encounter sarcasm. If you still encounter it you've got more credibility in defending yourself.
4) Read Barrett's thread I linked above. It is brilliant and should be made common knowledge to all who teach. That includes clinicians. After all, isn't teaching primarily what we are doing for our patients?

[nari]

Well, I agree with Bernard, and Randy did make the statement

we are a difficult crowd

which I have thought about, since.

To those who follow 'scientific' presentations without questioning their validity, we probably seem difficult.
Perhaps because they are not accustomed to questioning whatever come their way, regardless of references which can be manufactured, selective and sometimes way off.
Perhaps they are simply interested in results and outcomes, regardless of the hypothesis behind the presentations. We do not know how they explain the reasons behind pain and/or stiffness resolution to their clients/patients; and if the premise is that mobility means less pain, then that is correct.

What we try to do is look further, at specific reasons why mobility lessens pain; and this is the major moat separating us difficult ones from others. It doesn't seem to matter what resolves pain, until we explain to our patients what is going on.

Then it does matter.

Nari

[Diane]

Jason, :thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

[bernard]

What point of view would that be?

The scientific point of view, of course. :embarasse

[Jason Silvernail]

Bernard-

And it is true that we have some difficulty to accept others that present concepts that do not fit our point of view.

What point of view would that be? I see in the moderators of this site quite varied treatment approaches and styles. The only thing that holds us together is our commitment to scientific principles and intelligent theory that we feel should underlie modern practice.
If that breeds some hostility (which I haven't seen here) toward nonscientific approaches that can't be explained intelligently, then that seems perfectly appropriate to me.
I thought that was our job as scientists.

[bernard]

Diane,

I understand Randy, anyway.
I think that we aren't serious people at all but he knows that our comments and inquiries are made seriously.

It is remains true that SomaSimple tone is coloured in the way we share some scientific aspects about human functionning.
And it is true that we have some difficulty to accept others that present concepts that do not fit our point of view.

[Diane]

Randy, re: your first paragraph, if that's what you truly think about us, why are you still here?

[bernard]

I've been telling these guys forever that if they actually want people to hang around and participate that they need to lighten up on the hostility.

Randy, that's true and I have a simple, logical and scientific explanation that explains the found hostility.

You may call it: Patience lost.
158 posts and we are still waiting for a single response that feeds the theory.

We waited the same way for myofascial "method" evidence.

Perhaps, the outrageous way Z crowd presents claims lets us make shortcuts and time revealed that we were not really wrong. :angel:

BTW, I will never call it premonition, probably intuition or an ability to find flaws at an incredible speed.