Dennis Hardin

Five Minute Phobia Cure

Recommended Posts

In 1985, Dr. Roger Callahan started a revolution. He invented the “tapping cure,” and it has since evolved into a vast school of wide-ranging therapeutic techniques under the label of Energy Psychology. Can you imagine that it might be possible to alleviate stress, anxiety and phobias (and other sources of pain) by simply tapping on certain areas of the body? Well, as hard as that might be to believe, I have found the methods extremely effective.

There have been so many books published on Energy Psychology (aka TFT or Thought Field Therapy) since 1985 that I could not begin to list them all here. In my opinion, Five Minute Phobia Cure is the clearest and most concise introduction to the techniques. It contains diagrams and simplified instructions that make it easy for you to use the techniques in a matter of minutes.

The only problem with the techniques is getting people to believe that it isn’t a lot of fairy tales and hocus pocus. I have found the techniques especially helpful for getting past anxiety about social situations, but there are numerous other applications for all kinds of problems. The only reason I am posting this is because I truly do not like pain (or fear), and I hate the idea that anyone is suffering needlessly. I cannot believe that people would not want to minimize or eliminate their own physical and emotional discomfort, if they knew they could do so rather easily. (The techniques are only effective for pain or other discomfort which is psychological-emotional in origin.)

Then again, if you are truly a masochist, you probably should not read Dr. Callahan’s book. Life could get unbearably boring for you, real fast.

Incidentally, Roger Callahan was an associate of Nathaniel Branden as far back as the 1960s, and Branden uses some of Callahan’s techniques in his own practice. (You can read a related article by Dr. Branden--Brief Comments on Energy Psychology--at his website.)

The book is out of print, but you can order a used copy through Amazon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

This process has been known to Eastern holistic medicine for only five (5) millenia or so, but it does have merit.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to be a buzz-kill, but this is an area where quackery abounds:

I have heard Dr. Branden talk about something like this, I thought it had to do with Ken Wilber though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

This process has been known to Eastern holistic medicine for only five (5) millenia or so, but it does have merit.

Adam

Adam,

As I understand it, it’s actually based on acupuncture, which dates back to the Stone Age. In any case, the date of origin of a therapeutic method is unrelated to its effectiveness. Leeches were used for bloodletting in India 2500 years ago. So what? That says nothing about their medicinal value today.

Ayn Rand didn’t exactly discover reason either, but she also started a revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found his actual explanation of the "cure" incoherent. I could not understand why he would write a whole book and fall down on this. He devoted only a very small part of it to the actual technique. In fairness, I probably should crack it open again to verify this after so many years, but the damn thing's in storage and I don't know which box.

--Brant

I think Callahan wrote Contact which is very much worth the read.

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

This process has been known to Eastern holistic medicine for only five (5) millenia or so, but it does have merit.

Adam

Adam,

As I understand it, it's actually based on acupuncture, which dates back to the Stone Age. In any case, the date of origin of a therapeutic method is unrelated to its effectiveness. Leeches were used for bloodletting in India 2500 years ago. So what? That says nothing about their medicinal value today.

Ayn Rand didn't exactly discover reason either, but she also started a revolution.

Dennis:

Out of curiosity, were you under the impression that I was disagreeing with you or your post?

I was not.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to be a buzz-kill, but this is an area where quackery abounds:

media deleted

I have heard Dr. Branden talk about something like this, I thought it had to do with Ken Wilber though.

ND,

Did you read the post? It refers you to Branden's article on his website.

You might want to check it out before discouraging anyone else from doing something that just might help them feel better. But why should you care when you can get a cheap laugh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found his actual explanation of the "cure" incoherent. I could not understand why he would write a whole book and fall down on this. He devoted only a very small part of it to the actual technique. In fairness, I probably should crack it open again to verify this after so many years, but the damn thing's in storage and I don't know which box.

--Brant

He devoted a small part of the book to the actual technique because the technique is extremely simple. I'm not sure I ever read his explanation, to tell you the truth. I just wanted to see if the technique worked and it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

This process has been known to Eastern holistic medicine for only five (5) millenia or so, but it does have merit.

Adam

Adam,

As I understand it, it's actually based on acupuncture, which dates back to the Stone Age. In any case, the date of origin of a therapeutic method is unrelated to its effectiveness. Leeches were used for bloodletting in India 2500 years ago. So what? That says nothing about their medicinal value today.

Ayn Rand didn't exactly discover reason either, but she also started a revolution.

Dennis:

Out of curiosity, were you under the impression that I was disagreeing with you or your post?

I was not.

Adam

Adam,

I did get the feeling that you were minimizing the importance of Callahan's discovery. But I can understand why someone might do that, because the whole idea of ridding yourself of pain through tapping seems kind of ridiculous.

I have neglected to ask you: that picture suggests that you lost someone you cared deeply about in Viet Nam. Would you want to say who it was? I also lost a childhood friend in that goddawful war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read the post? It refers you to Branden's article on his website.

Sure, though a link would have been nice.

You might want to check it out before discouraging anyone else from doing something that just might help them feel better.

I wasn’t discouraging anyone, I thought I was contributing to the thread. In any event, when I saw him talk about it, it was at a TAS event, and someone asked him (in a rather challenging tone) to justify his “association” with Ken Wilber. He told a story about someone (I thought it was Wilber) having him call up the emotional memory of losing his 2nd wife, and the person touched him on his back in some unusual way, and he said that after that he no longer felt the same immediacy of the experience, the pain. In short, an endorsement. For my part, I reserve judgement, I haven’t tried it, and given the quackery in the area, I’m suspicious and would only try it if I was referred to a specific practitioner.

But why should you care when you can get a cheap laugh?

I thought I left out the laughs, so any you got weren't cheap, they were free. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found his actual explanation of the "cure" incoherent. I could not understand why he would write a whole book and fall down on this. He devoted only a very small part of it to the actual technique. In fairness, I probably should crack it open again to verify this after so many years, but the damn thing's in storage and I don't know which box.

--Brant

He devoted a small part of the book to the actual technique because the technique is extremely simple. I'm not sure I ever read his explanation, to tell you the truth. I just wanted to see if the technique worked and it did.

Not being a psychologist I had no one to try it on, but I sure do wish he had explained it two different ways because I couldn't figure it out. I do know Branden uses such techniques in his current work, which is a pretty strong endorsement so I'm not knocking it as such, but my experiences with him are mid-70s through early eighties and for me there is nothing to tie it in to. If I had a problem he could tap me all he wanted; I'd give it a try as long as he doesn't use a hammer.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

Yes. I lost two very close friends. One from a small town in Pennsylvania where my family had a "summer home" which we used year round. Only heat was a pot belly stove in the living room and a space heater in the dining room.

In the winter, you hauled your bathroom flushing water by hand from the creek some 50 feet behind the house.

We got our drinking water from the spring which never froze - the purest water I have ever drunk. We hauled that by hand from about 3/4 of a mile away.

The Vietnam War decimated the town. Stripped it of almost all the young men and the young women mostly all left for jobs and boys in Washington. A whole generation just vanished from this beautiful Delaware River town.

My friend whose name I had just touched was my good friend and teammate. I avoided going to the wall for almost two decades because I just did not want to acknowledge the loss.

I did not even know that that picture was going to be taken. I was completely lost in memories, guilt and sorrow.

The other person was a late acquaintance and a very good friend from NY who enlisted in the Marines. A good man. He knew why he joined and it was just as painful to lose him.

http://go.footnote.com/thewall/

The link above is one of the finest pieces of work ever. I have spent hours on the wall through this site. You can add notes, or pictures to your friends name. It is inspiring and cathartic.

My condolences on the loss of your friend.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, I haven't had occasion to use Roger Callahan's technique myself, but I know several people who have used it and found it tremendously effective in ridding them of phobias.

Barbara

Thanks very much for your comment, Barbara.

A few years ago, I heard Nathaniel Branden talk about his personal experience with the Callahan techniques, and his comments show how tapping can be effective for trauma as well as phobias and anxiety. I am working from memory here, so please keep in mind that these are my words and not Nathaniel’s. He told his audience that he was deeply emotionally impacted (as I recall, he said depressed, but I am not absolutely certain of that) by the videos of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11. He experienced overwhelming shock and disbelief, and it persisted to the point that it began to impact his normal daily functioning. Then he used the Callahan techniques, and it worked like a miracle. The relief was immediate.

As I indicated above, I have found the techniques very useful for dealing with anxiety about certain social situations. I was in a steady relationship for 8 years—I thought I would be with her forever--but it ended, and I have had to face the challenge of dating again. It is extremely anxiety-provoking to even think about letting another woman into my life, but tapping has made it bearable not only to think about but to actually begin seeing people again.

It is a godsend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

Yes. I lost two very close friends. One from a small town in Pennsylvania where my family had a "summer home" which we used year round. Only heat was a pot belly stove in the living room and a space heater in the dining room.

In the winter, you hauled your bathroom flushing water by hand from the creek some 50 feet behind the house.

We got our drinking water from the spring which never froze - the purest water I have ever drunk. We hauled that by hand from about 3/4 of a mile away.

The Vietnam War decimated the town. Stripped it of almost all the young men and the young women mostly all left for jobs and boys in Washington. A whole generation just vanished from this beautiful Delaware River town.

My friend whose name I had just touched was my good friend and teammate. I avoided going to the wall for almost two decades because I just did not want to acknowledge the loss.

I did not even know that that picture was going to be taken. I was completely lost in memories, guilt and sorrow.

The other person was a late acquaintance and a very good friend from NY who enlisted in the Marines. A good man. He knew why he joined and it was just as painful to lose him.

http://go.footnote.com/thewall/

The link above is one of the finest pieces of work ever. I have spent hours on the wall through this site. You can add notes, or pictures to your friends name. It is inspiring and cathartic.

My condolences on the loss of your friend.

Adam

Adam,

Thanks for your personal story. I was very touched by it.

My high school classmate also enlisted. He was a first lieutenant, and was killed during a Viet Cong ambush whole drawing fire away from his troops. He was one of those rare friends whose quiet strength gave me the sense that your life could actually amount to something—in a world of such bewildering adolescent madness that every day seemed like I was living a nightmare.

I waited over 30 years to visit the wall—and I was so overcome by tears that I could not say anything to the people I was with. He had so much potential. All I could think about was the horrible, unspeakable waste.

Thanks very much for that link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with the techniques is getting people to believe that it isn’t a lot of fairy tales and hocus pocus.

Well, the theory behind Thought Field Therapy (of which the 5 minute phobia cure is one example) is tosh. That is a second problem besides the one noted above.

Another problem with TFT is that its practitioners avoid any attempts to investigate it by standard rational means (science).

There are further problems with TFT, which can be seen in the Skeptical Inquirer article by Brandon A. Gaudiano and James D. Herbert, "Can We Really Tap Our Problems Away? A Critical Analysis of Thought Field Therapy."

I include two small excerpts from the article, in which the authors discuss alternative explanations for the claims of efficacy:

In addition to the absence of controls for spontaneous

remission, no research has ruled out factors that are common-to

greater or lesser degrees-in all psychotherapies. These include

placebo effects resulting from the mere expectation for

improvement, demand characteristics, therapist enthusiasm and

support, therapist-client alliance, and effort justification

(i.e., the tendency to report positive changes in order to

justify the effort exerted; Lohr, Lilienfeld, Tolin, and Herbert

1999). Thus, despite the absence of empirical evidence to

support TFT’s claims of tremendous effectiveness, it would not

be surprising to find that the procedure sometimes produces

benefits for some individuals owing to these common mechanisms

shared by all forms of psychotherapy. Serious psychotherapy

innovators go to great lengths to conduct studies to demonstrate

that the hypothesized active ingredients of their procedures

outperform these so-called “nonspecific” effects. No such effort

has been made by the promoters of TFT.

In addition to nonspecific and placebo effects, TFT appears to

incorporate procedures from existing, well-established therapies.

TFT therapists instruct clients to focus repeatedly on distressing

thoughts and images during the tapping sequences. Such repeated

exposure to distressing cognitions is a well-known behavior

therapy technique called imagery exposure (Foa and Meadows 1997).

Furthermore, TFT therapists utilize cognitive coping statements

throughout treatment (e.g., “I accept and forgive them for what

they did”), which represent another established cognitive therapy

technique. In short, any effects that TFT might show can be

readily explained by known mechanisms, without invoking unfounded

concepts such as “perturbations” and “thought fields” (Hooke

1998a).

I am often surprised when self-styled Objectivists, who valorize reason and scientific method, can be so easily gulled by quackery and snake-oil. The lack of critical thinking and inquiry is surprising. For example, how can an Objectivish person seriously swallow the mumbo-jumbo about 'thought fields' and 'perturbations' of same, as an explanation of TFT's workings? Moreover, are any of the Objectivish who are thrilled enough with TFT to endorse it and recommend it -- are any of these folks familiar with the kooky claims for 'Voice Technology'?

I am glad that Dennis feels less bound by anxieties surrounding his return to the dating market, but would suggest that he pull in his horns and not shill for a quack.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the procedures described in Roger Callahan's book not long after it was first published.

They didn't work for me.

Mileage has obviously varied.

The theory behind TFT and allied techniques (when the practitioner even offers one) is indeed "tosh."

That doesn't constitute proof that TFT doesn't do anything for anybody. It means that to the extent that such techniqes work, and their effects can't be reasonably attributed to placebo effects and all the rest, they work without anyone knowing how they work.

Which isn't unheard of in psychology. For nearly 200 years, hypnosis has been working for a lot of people without (even in 2010) any generally accepted explanation of the way it works.

It does bother me that many advocates of TFT and the like are uninterested in properly designed empirical tests of the therapy's effectiveness.

Robert Campbell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the procedures described in Roger Callahan's book not long after it was first published.

They didn't work for me.

Mileage has obviously varied.

The theory behind TFT and allied techniques (when the practitioner even offers one) is indeed "tosh."

That doesn't constitute proof that TFT doesn't do anything for anybody. It means that to the extent that such techniqes work, and their effects can't be reasonably attributed to placebo effects and all the rest, they work without anyone knowing how they work.

Which isn't unheard of in psychology. For nearly 200 years, hypnosis has been working for a lot of people without (even in 2010) any generally accepted explanation of the way it works.

It does bother me that many advocates of TFT and the like are uninterested in properly designed empirical tests of the therapy's effectiveness.

Robert Campbell

I think Robert’s comments are reasonable and worthwhile. No doubt it is true that TFT does not work for everyone. Few therapies are universally effective.

As a therapist, I recommend TFT because of the number of people that it does help. I certainly have no objection to anyone conducting empirical trials of the techniques, although I tend to be a bit skeptical of such things. All the medical experts are constantly telling us that there is no scientific evidence that vitamins have any effectiveness for preventing illness. I continue to take them, and I continue to see other people getting sick when I do not.

Here’s what I would have to say if I thought Scherk’s comments deserved more respect than he shows to me:

“Okay. You’re right. The next time I talk to a patient, I will tell him or her that I know of a technique that many clients have found enormously helpful—including myself--but I’m not going to use it because an article in the Skeptical Inquirer says it’s quackery. Until someone can verify scientifically why and how the techniques work, you will just have to suffer. The techniques are amazingly simple and there is absolutely no possibility of any negative effects from doing it, but I’m an Objectivist and I have to limit myself to methods that are proven scientifically.”

Fortunately for my clients, I don’t think Scherk's comments deserve any respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly have no objection to anyone conducting empirical trials of the techniques, although I tend to be a bit skeptical of such things.

I expect that if someone presented to Dr Hardin with a phobia, he would take a history, attempt to assess the severity of the person's distress and then attempt to alleviate the distress by some means. He would compare the efficacy of, say, exposure therapy to that of TFT, and then proceed to relieving the symptoms by the best means available.

I would expect a Dr Hardin to diligently do his homework on the evidence that supports the several modalities, to dig into credible research, and to let his client/patient understand that TFT holds no special means to relieve distress. He would offer the client the best, evidence-based treatment, and he would carefully check his own knowledge base.

He would say, "I can't give you anything but testimonials to the effectiveness of TFT. I can't point you to any materials that have even-handedly found that TFT is a superior modality. I cannot find anything that satisfies my criticisms of TFT. I can't promote a therapy that has failed its tests."

All the medical experts are constantly telling us that there is no scientific evidence that vitamins have any effectiveness for preventing illness.

This is so murky.

That adequate amounts of the vitamins are necessary for health is a no-brainer. No vitamin C in your diet, get scurvy and die. Etcetera.

I suppose that Dr Hardin may be referring to scientific research that has explored whether vitamin supplements are necessary above and beyond the minimum requirements. He may be referring to research that explored the relationship between taking extra vitamins and the prevention of serious conditions that plague humanity: vascular disease and cancer, perhaps.

Who knows? All I get from the response is that Dr Hardin does not trust rigourous experiment and study to deliver rational, credible information.

If this is true, that Dr Hardin disdains critical inquiry in medicine and the fruits of such inquiry is quite sobering, if not shocking.

It suggests that he has put down some very useful tools of rationality -- if not that he is unacquainted with many tools that augment our human ability to separate out the crap and quackery from the reasonable.

It further suggests, on the subject of TFT, that evidence be damned, that rational inquiry or the results of rigourous scientific methodology are superfluous, that making reasoned decisions about health can proceed without benefit of searching, critical tests.

It boggles my mind that some folk who march under the Objectivist banner of reason can be so cavalier in dismissing some sharp tools of reason. I just don't get how this squares with Objectivism.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly have no objection to anyone conducting empirical trials of the techniques, although I tend to be a bit skeptical of such things.

This is definitely one for the ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a psychotherapist I'd probably investigate using TFT as an adjunct to other things. However, my primary orientation would be to live one's life rationally and with integrity concomitant with those other things and as a follow up. (I'd also have to be a role model.) The client would have to work and eventually work very hard in goal oriented ways and learn about self-esteem and how to improve on one's self-esteem all in the context of self-responsibility. I would not try to help someone with terribly severe problems, but provide a referral. I'd do individual therapy in a group context. Of course, none of this is of my professional interest or I'd have been doing it for decades now.

--Brant

slave driver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It boggles my mind that some folk who march under the Objectivist banner of reason can be so cavalier in dismissing some sharp tools of reason. I just don't get how this squares with Objectivism.

I have found Energy work extraordinarily helpful in dealing with negatives--healing traumas and eliminating traumatic patterns, overcoming anxieties and insecurities, healing psychic wounds, curing phobias, lifting depression, and so forth. But I have never found any school of Energy Psychology to be a totally stand-alone therapy.

So in my work I interweave the kind of themes I write about into my practice when I am also using some form of Energy Psychology -- and I interweave what I have learned from Energy Psychology into my practice when I am working with someone on issues of self-development and self-actualization.

When I am working on eliminating negatives, I am also weaving in positives--and when I am working on developing positives, I sometimes need to pause to focus on the elimination of a negative.

Does Energy Psychology offer some tools for installing positives? Yes. Some. But by my standards not enough by itself. I might be mistaken but I don't think most therapists of a basically Energy orientation would give me an argument about this.

Surely it is enough to say that in my judgment Energy Psychology has made revolutionary contributions and I am profoundly grateful to colleagues like Callahan and Clinton.

Nathaniel Branden, Brief Comments on Energy Psychology

Both Dr. Branden and I have found something that works much more effectively than any other alternative approach with respect to eliminating negatives. I have no intention of wasting further time responding to the foolish assertions made by Mr. Scherk. I am fairly certain that even he knows how ridiculous he sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly have no objection to anyone conducting empirical trials of the techniques, although I tend to be a bit skeptical of such things.

This is definitely one for the ages.

So both you and Scherk are shocked that I would think that bias could be a factor which skews the outcomes of many so-called empirical studies, and that I would be very reluctant to stop using a method I found effective because some establishment experts claimed it did not work.

I am shocked that you would think that I regard such astonishing naiveté as deserving of a serious response.

The two of you might want to check out a book called The Fountainhead. It describes how challenging it can be for new ideas to gain acceptance in a world dominated by tradition and convention. I can guess which side you would be on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it is enough to say that in my judgment Energy Psychology has made revolutionary contributions and I am profoundly grateful to colleagues like Callahan and Clinton.

Nathaniel Branden, Brief Comments on Energy Psychology

Both Dr. Branden and I have found something that works much more effectively than any other alternative approach with respect to eliminating negatives.

For those interested in Nathaniel Branden's full remarks on 'Energy Psychology,' the text can be found here: Brief Comments on Energy Psychology

I don't know exactly what Dr Hardin means by citing Branden. Perhaps the authority of Branden on the subject is all that needs to be said on the subject. If Branden says EP has made revolutionary contributions, then we can all stop thinking.

Seriously, Hardin has given us nothing but testimonials and an indication that empirical research is suspect. Is that good enough for Objectivists? What I don't understand is how one checks his premises with regard to the 'energy' therapies. How would Dr Hardin know he is wrong?

Here is an odd bit from the Branden piece (emphasis added):

These days [NB - 2002] I am immersed in the study and practice of Seemorg Matrix Work, developed by Asha Clinton. Clinton uses some of work originated by Roger Callahan in TFT and I understand that TFT people work with the chakras sometimes... which is all as it should be.

Objectivist chakras? Ye gawds.

Looking deeper into the touted Seemorg Matrix Work (since renamed Advanced Integrative Therapy) we find a welter of tosh and piffle, a grab-bag of astonishing claims and theoretic notions (emphases added).

Advanced Integrative Therapy clears the traumatic residue such as disturbing emotions, negative beliefs and attitudes, destructive desire and fantasies, addictions, compulsions, obsessions, dissociation, spiritual blockage, physical abreaction, sensitivities and disease.

Advanced Integrative Therapy transforms negative character structures into positive ones, thus allowing therapists to successfully treat personality disorders, dissociative disorders, non-psychotic paranoid disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. To do this, therapists learn how to access unconscious material through ideomotor cueing (muscle testing), and how to move energy through the body's major energy centers (chakras) to eliminate symptoms, their cause and after-effects.

Muscle-testing! Abreaction! Muscle testing! Chakras! Yee haw !!

And all seemingly endorsed by Branden. From the same page, immediately below the above tosh:

“Asha Clinton is a leading innovator in the exploding field of Energy Psychology. As someone who has seen her working with others, experienced her approach personally, and used her methods in my own practice, I am deeply impressed by the originality, effectiveness, and healing power of her system. It is a major contribution.”

Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D.

author of “The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem”

[from Seemorg Matrix Work™ the new transpersonal energy psychotherapy™]

There is more woo . . .

Foundations

Advanced Integrative Therapy is based on the psychodynamic underpinnings provided by analytic psychology, object relations, and self psychology; on traumatology, energy psychology and energy healing; and on teachings and practices drawn from Sufism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and other spiritual and religious traditions.

If anyone is wondering about the deeper theoretical basis of Seemorg Matrix Work (emphasis added). . .

Seemorg bases the Clinton-LeShan model, the cornerstone of

Seemorg treatment methodology, on the Freudian notion of the

primacy of early experience (Nagera, Eissler, Freud, Hartman,

and Kris (Eds.) 1966). Seemorg practitioners understand early

experience to include not only childhood, but also the

historical experience of the client's culture, lineage and,

where appropriate, past lives. Where childhood is concerned,

Seemorg focuses particularly on the vicissitudes of symbiosis

(Mahler and Furer 1993; Mahler, Pine, and Bergman 2000; Little

1981) and attachment (Bowlby 1989; Cassidy and Shaver (Eds.)

2002) that have been analyzed by the object relations school.

Equally important, from the Seemorg perspective, is that

school's conception of the damaged or wounded object (Buckley

1986), which strongly undergirds the Seemorg treatment of

archetypes and alters.

Cognitive therapy contributes to Seemorg its focus on the

importance of transforming negative cognitions (Beck 1993; Beck

1995; Leahy 2003). Although, in Seemorg Matrix Work, we

conceptualize negative cognitions as aftereffects of trauma, we

recognize that such cognitive aftereffects alone can distort a

life, and utilize the Seemorg Core Belief Protocol in order to

transform them. In this protocol, we first move the

electromagnetic energy that comprises the negative belief out of

the body, and then, again using energy movement, instill a

realistic, positive belief in its place.

[from The Theoretical Basis of Seemorg Matrix]

Yup. Moving that old 'electromagnetic energy' out of the body with 'energy movement.' Archetypes and alters.

But, what the heck, Dr Branden says it's great. And Dr Hardin says it's great. That is apparently all an Objectivist needs to know. Case closed. Empirical study is suspect. If in doubt, read The Fountainhead.

Now, I won't belabour the point too much more in this post. I just find it astonishing that Dr Hardin has kicked down the fences between reason and woo, and expects his audience here to take his and Branden's authority and use it as a brush to sweep away all questions and critiques.

So both you [Peter Reidy] and Scherk are shocked that I would think that bias could be a factor which skews the outcomes of many so-called empirical studies, and that I would be very reluctant to stop using a method I found effective because some establishment experts claimed it did not work.

I hope I understand this. 'Bias' could be a skewing factor in studies. Does it follow that Dr Hardin is free of bias in his non-study of TFT?

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathaniel Branden is basically ignorant of scientific methodology and empiricism in psychology. This doesn't mean that what he does doesn't work, only that it can be hard to travel. Regarding Callahan's book, he once stated that one should read it to make up one's own mind about it as if one could rationally then decide if it was true, good and effective while that wouldn't even vitiate a possible placebo effect.

--Brant

liked what he did before but don't get the new stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...