Wagons Being Circled

[Robert Campbell]

I'm agreeing that they did it, and that it was the height of folly.

And Ayn Rand was a key participant in it.

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

Historical note to #148: sentence-completion was available long before 1968.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have to look this up, but I am not so sure NB claims to have invented sentence completion. I'm almost sure he claims to have developed his own system of sentence completion, i.e., his own technique in using it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Historical note to #148: sentence-completion was available long before 1968.

NB started using sc around 1970 and didn't evolve it to its basic present form in his hands for about two more years. (See Breaking Free and contrast with The Disowned Self). Your statement is true in that NB did not invent sc, he developed it into a structured technique. Before him it was mostly a form of free association. You can even see it being used in the 1968 movie Bob and Ted and Carol and Alice (or some other jumble of those names).

Nathaniel Branden continued to evolve the technique to greater levels of effectiveness and sophistication in the 1970s and 1980s aided by the help of his then-wife Devers who was just as effective with it as he was, the difference being she brought a female sensitivity to how it was used which was greater than Nathaniel's. I have seen them work together. Nathaniel once started with someone and went so far then traded him off to Devers who tried a slightly different approach and it worked quite well in the context of that particular Intensive. How it helped the guy later on I've no idea and neither did the Brandens. All the work NB has done as a psychotherapist has left no data. I know how it affected me--positively--but not others and while I could tell stories about me and sc and other things apropos NB's work they are bottom-line only anecdotal. To restate the matter: I witnessed effectiveness in that sc got to the seeming heart of the matter being dealt with (and quickly) but do not know if it was ultimately really beneficial to anyone but myself. I'm sure NB received much subsequent positive feedback from many of what must have been over 10,000 clients over the years, but that does not constitute data.

Psychotherapy is art. Your therapist can hurt you. You (some other person), not me. I'm too smart, tough, old and have seen and experienced too much. The younger you are as an adult the more it is likely to help or hurt you. (I don't see how tapping per se could hurt anybody.)

The greatest or first significant positive effect a psychotherapist can have is a sense of immediate relief for having someone or someone else to talk to about something of great personal importance one experiences as intractable. In another sense psychotherapy begins at home if you have someone to talk to--a benefit of a good marriage.

--Brant

Edited September 24, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[kiaer.ts]

Historical note to #148: sentence-completion was available long before 1968.

How does that make you feel?

[PDS]

anxious.

[kiaer.ts]

anxious.

I am happy someone gets my humor.

[Dennis Hardin]

Nathaniel Branden continued to evolve the technique to greater levels of effectiveness and sophistication in the 1970s and 1980s aided by the help of his then-wife Devers who was just as effective with it as he was, the difference being she brought a female sensitivity to how it was used which was greater than Nathaniel's. I have seen them work together. Nathaniel once started with someone and went so far then traded him off to Devers who tried a slightly different approach and it worked quite well in the context of that particular Intensive. How it helped the guy later on I've no idea and neither did the Brandens. All the work NB has done as a psychotherapist has left no data. I know how it affected me--positively--but not others and while I could tell stories about me and sc and other things apropos NB's work they are bottom-line only anecdotal. To restate the matter: I witnessed effectiveness in that sc got to the seeming heart of the matter being dealt with (and quickly) but do not know if it was ultimately really beneficial to anyone but myself. I'm sure NB received much subsequent positive feedback from many of what must have been over 10,000 clients over the years, but that does not constitute data.

--Brant

Brant,

I concur with much of what you say, but I disagree that we do not understand why sentence completion works.

The genius of Branden's radically new approach to the sentence-completion technique is simple: People know a lot about themselves that they don’t realize they know. Sentence completion works so much better and faster than other approaches because it enlists the patient as a kind of co-therapist. The therapist isn’t trying to guess what’s going on—the client is giving the answers and integrating the emerging material cognitively. The therapist is just leading the client in potentially productive directions.

One of Branden’s most frequently offered sentence stems is: “Slowly but surely it is dawning on me that...” Or: “If I permit myself to fully accept what I am saying..”

In addition, the client is much more likely to accept conclusions and insights that he discovers on his own, as opposed to having the therapist tell him. This is what makes the sentence completion process so powerful.

[9thdoctor]

The genius of Branden's radically new approach to the sentence-completion technique is simple: People know a lot about themselves that they don’t realize they know.

Someone ought to upload to YouTube Branden telling his story of a client with a bad Texas accent, where he couldn’t even tell what the person was complaining about, but with a sentence completion exercise assignment, she’d figured out her problem on her own before the next consultation. It’s a funny story, he tells it well. “I didn’t have a clue, but I knew that she did”. There was a video of him giving a talk surrounded by ferns, it was in there, I've got it on VHS awaiting excavation. He told the same story at one or two events where I’ve seen him, so it’s one of his standards. His YouTube presence is lacking, it would be a good way to promote his work.

[Reidy]

Do we know that sentence-completion works at all? Brant in #154 says we have no hard data from Branden. Do we have it from anybody else who uses the method?

On the other hand, Brant alludes to a wealth of testimonials. This isn't as good as a full-dress empirical test with controls, blinds and followups, but it's better than nothing. If qualified, unbiased investigators gathered them from a large enough sample, they could be potent evidence. This would require, for starters, clear criteria of what it is to "work." On the other hand, if the sample is self-selecting or selected by interested parties, testimonials don't mean much of anything.

Branden's admirers say that he deserves more respect from professionals and academics in his field. Maybe he does, but that's not going to happen as long as we have only anecdotes (however pleasingly photographed).

[Brant Gaede]

Do we know that sentence-completion works at all? Brant in #154 says we have no hard data from Branden. Do we have it from anybody else who uses the method?

On the other hand, Brant alludes to a wealth of testimonials. This isn't as good as a full-dress empirical test with controls, blinds and followups, but it's better than nothing. If qualified, unbiased investigators gathered them from a large enough sample, they could be potent evidence. This would require, for starters, clear criteria of what it is to "work." On the other hand, if the sample is self-selecting or selected by interested parties, testimonials don't mean much of anything.

Branden's admirers say that he deserves more respect from professionals and academics in his field. Maybe he does, but that's not going to happen as long as we have only anecdotes (however pleasingly photographed).

I have offered no testimony on the quantity of testimonials Branden has received about his therapeutic work. Only an opinion.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Do we know that sentence-completion works at all? Brant in #154 says we have no hard data from Branden. Do we have it from anybody else who uses the method?

On the other hand, Brant alludes to a wealth of testimonials. This isn't as good as a full-dress empirical test with controls, blinds and followups, but it's better than nothing. If qualified, unbiased investigators gathered them from a large enough sample, they could be potent evidence. This would require, for starters, clear criteria of what it is to "work." On the other hand, if the sample is self-selecting or selected by interested parties, testimonials don't mean much of anything.

Branden's admirers say that he deserves more respect from professionals and academics in his field. Maybe he does, but that's not going to happen as long as we have only anecdotes (however pleasingly photographed).

I find it interesting that the only way you would know whether a psychological technique “worked” or not would be to undertake a “full dress” empirical study. “Let’s take a group of patients and use the sentence-completion method on half of them and classical psycho-analysis on the other half. We’ll work with each group for six months. We’ll test them with the MMPI at the start of the therapy and then re-test them at the end and see which group is healthier.”

There is just one problem with this idea: it would prove nothing. The science of psychology is presently at a primitive stage where there is no such thing as genuine objective testing. Standard tests like the MMPI are a joke. The only thing we would have to go by is the self-reports of the patients regarding whether or not they feel better now than they did when therapy began. In other words, testimonials.

There’s a much easier way for you to find out if sentence-completion works or not: buy one of Dr. Branden’s books and try the technique on yourself. Do your own self-report. But that would mean you would have to take a serious look at yourself. That’s a lot more challenging than posting impudent, pretentious insults on a webforum.

[Reidy]

As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me.

In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well.

As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Reidy

[Robert Campbell]

Dennis,

I think you're being unduly dismissive of the research side of psychology. Which, in turn, will encourage the researchers to dump further on clinicians as overly impressionable and "unscientific."

I find it interesting that the only way you would know whether a psychological technique "worked" or not would be to undertake a "full dress" empirical study. "Let's take a group of patients and use the sentence-completion method on half of them and classical psycho-analysis on the other half. We'll work with each group for six months. We'll test them with the MMPI at the start of the therapy and then re-test them at the end and see which group is healthier."

There is just one problem with this idea: it would prove nothing. The science of psychology is presently at a primitive stage where there is no such thing as genuine objective testing. Standard tests like the MMPI are a joke. The only thing we would have to go by is the self-reports of the patients regarding whether or not they feel better now than they did when therapy began. In other words, testimonials.

First, psychological measurement is a difficult and vexed subject. There, has, however, been some progress in it. In 2010, few investigators would use the infamous MMPI to assess therapy outcomes; the MMPI is now often used as a negative exemplar (a study in how not to) in psychometrics courses. If I and others accepted your assessment, we wouldn't be trying to find better ways to assess such things as self-esteem; we'd give up the project as hopeless.

Second, one of the first psychologists to promote and conduct therapy outcome studies was Carl Rogers. Today, the Positive Psychology contingent (Marty Seligman and company) has been rigorous in following up on the effectiveness of virtually everything they recommend ("gratitude visits," right away; after 3 months; after 6 months; after a year, and so on) and making the findings publicly available. Should they not be doing that?

Third, even if all you did was ask everyone who went through one or another course of therapy to what extent they felt it benefited them (and obviously you'd need to do more than that), at least you'd get the global self-report of every client. Testimonials come from some of those who say they feel better and are convinced that the particular therapy helped them; the rest typically aren't heard from.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Do we know that sentence-completion works at all? Brant in #154 says we have no hard data from Branden. Do we have it from anybody else who uses the method?

On the other hand, Brant alludes to a wealth of testimonials. This isn't as good as a full-dress empirical test with controls, blinds and followups, but it's better than nothing. If qualified, unbiased investigators gathered them from a large enough sample, they could be potent evidence. This would require, for starters, clear criteria of what it is to "work." On the other hand, if the sample is self-selecting or selected by interested parties, testimonials don't mean much of anything.

Branden's admirers say that he deserves more respect from professionals and academics in his field. Maybe he does, but that's not going to happen as long as we have only anecdotes (however pleasingly photographed).

I find it interesting that the only way you would know whether a psychological technique "worked" or not would be to undertake a "full dress" empirical study. "Let's take a group of patients and use the sentence-completion method on half of them and classical psycho-analysis on the other half. We'll work with each group for six months. We'll test them with the MMPI at the start of the therapy and then re-test them at the end and see which group is healthier."

There is just one problem with this idea: it would prove nothing. The science of psychology is presently at a primitive stage where there is no such thing as genuine objective testing. Standard tests like the MMPI are a joke. The only thing we would have to go by is the self-reports of the patients regarding whether or not they feel better now than they did when therapy began. In other words, testimonials.

There's a much easier way for you to find out if sentence-completion works or not: buy one of Dr. Branden's books and try the technique on yourself. Do your own self-report. But that would mean you would have to take a serious look at yourself. That's a lot more challenging than posting impudent, pretentious insults on a webforum.

S.C. done by yourself helps you find out things that tend to be buried for various reasons. It is not generally greatly abreactive; that'd require in most cases work with a therapeutic master who would go from one stem to another as appropriate and even jump into another technique completely, which Branden called "compounding." That happened to me once; it took care of about 80% of my problem with a lot of the remaining problem taken care of by and for other reasons leaving me with only a little. I keep what's left around out of nostalgia.

Doing s.c. needs a recording of what you do so you can go back later and review it--verbal or written. And do do it the way Branden says to do it.

--Brant

Edited September 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

I think you're being unduly dismissive of the research side of psychology. Which, in turn, will encourage the researchers to dump further on clinicians as overly impressionable and "unscientific."

First, psychological measurement is a different and vexed subject. There, has, however, been some progress in it. In 2010, few investigators would use the infamous MMPI to assess therapy outcomes; the MMPI is now often used as a negative exemplar (a study in how not to) in psychometrics courses. If I and others accepted your assessment, we wouldn't be trying to find better ways to assess such things as self-esteem; we'd give up the project as hopeless.

Second, one of the first psychologists to promote and conduct therapy outcome studies was Carl Rogers. Today, the Positive Psychology contingent (Marty Seligman and company) has bee rigorous in following up on the effectiveness of virtually everything they recommend ("gratitude visits," right away; after 3 months; after 6 months; after a year, and so on) and making the findings publicly available. Should they not be doing that?

Third, even if all you dd was ask everyone who went through one or another course of therapy to what extent they felt it benefited them (and obviously you'd need to do more than that), at least you'd get the global self-report of every client. Testimonials come from some of those who say they feel better and are convinced that the particular theraoy helped them; the rest typically aren't heard from.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

That’s a fair criticism. I probably was too dismissive. I was primarily trying to correct the sadly mistaken idea that you can do the same sort of “objective, scientific” testing in psychology that you can do in the medical field. As it stands, we have to rely pretty much on tests that are essentially just self-reports or testimonials. But if self-reports or testimonials are the standard, why in the world would anyone wait around for someone else’s self-report when he/she can do their own “test”? After all, we each happen to have the same basic laboratory for our experiments.

In psychology, when people say they need “objective, scientific” proof to say that a given technique is generally helpful (e.g., sentence completion, tapping)—and it’s a technique that the individual can work with on his own, without a professional to guide him—the person is, quite simply, full of shit.

For more specific clinical syndromes, such as depression and anxiety, studies can be helpful in demonstrating which methods work and which do not. In addition to the work you mentioned, I know there have been many studies which have shown the superior effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depressive symptoms—studies which show that CBT is equally as effective as medication in many cases. Once again, however, these studies have to rely upon self-reports regarding the alleviation of symptoms, and, to that extent, they do not qualify as, strictly speaking, “objective.”

In psychology, to demand that one needs "objective, scientific proof" to show that a given method works--when the person has obviously not taken the effort to experiment with it on his own--you can be sure you are talking to an a-hole.

[william.scherk]

Third, even if all you dd was ask everyone who went through one or another course of therapy to what extent they felt it benefited them (and obviously you'd need to do more than that), at least you'd get the global self-report of every client. Testimonials come from some of those who say they feel better and are convinced that the particular theraoy helped them; the rest typically aren't heard from.

[ . . . ] I was primarily trying to correct the sadly mistaken idea that you can do the same sort of “objective, scientific” testing in psychology that you can do in the medical field. As it stands, we have to rely pretty much on tests that are essentially just self-reports or testimonials.

Self-reports are not quite the same thing as testimonials in the context of psychological testing. A self-report is necessarily a kind of test, but a testimonial, as generally understood, is not. A testimonial is generally understood as an advertising technique. Do you not accept that distinction?

Consider a doctor treating patients for anxiety, and inquiring, or 'testing' the action of a anxiolytic on her patients.

She must, of course, ask each patient for a self-report ("are you feeling better, worse, the same? Have there been any side-effects?").

If she attempts to generalize the effect of the anxiolytic on her patients, it would be irrational and unethical to put aside negative self-reports.

On the other hand, a huckster will set aside negative self-reports when touting the benefits of his product.

Consider the fate of Zyprexa, an atypical anti-psychotic medication marketed by Lilly. Why was Lilly subject to a criminal fine of half a billion dollars? In a nutshell, Lilly marketed the product as safe and effective, while concealing or discounting negative self-reports.

Similarly, Roger Callahan's promotional materials for the five minute phobia contain no negative self-reports, only positive testimonials.

But if self-reports or testimonials are the standard, why in the world would anyone wait around for someone else’s self-report when he/she can do their own “test”?

I should think the answer is obvious -- in the context of the positive testimonial you put forward in the other thread, "Five Minute Phobia Cure Energy: Psychology In One Lesson," the 'test' you urge non-masochists to apply is to read an out of print book, and then, seemingly, to do the tapping cure. For those of us without crippling anxiety or phobias, the utility of our 'testing' the tapping cure on ourselves is obviously zero.

In psychology, when people say they need “objective, scientific” proof to say that a given technique is generally helpful (e.g., sentence completion, tapping)—and it’s a technique that the individual can work with on his own, without a professional to guide him—the person is, quite simply, full of shit.

No person here has used the term you put in scare quoats. No one here has asked for "proof." So, it seems you are generalizing, equating a questioning attitude to shit. That is, on its face, suspect. The composition of the argument you have put forward in your testimonial is suspect on several grounds:

-- those who don't try tapping are masochists

-- those who ask for evidence are full of shit

-- those who are critical of TFT claims are assholes

-- those who question you are 'anti-life' and evul

In psychology, to demand that one needs "objective, scientific proof" to show that a given method works--when the person has obviously not taken the effort to experiment with it on his own--you can be sure you are talking to an a-hole.

It seems that you accept TFT claims of superior efficacy on rather thin grounds -- and when challenged you apply dire epithets.

I will close with an excerpt from a posting by Monica Pignotti on the Yahoo list TFT-ALGO. She is the person who was one of Roger Callahan's inner circle, and an adherent of TFT (including its secret Voice Technology). I wonder, Doctor Hardin, if you would characterize Pignotti as a full of shit asshole for needing 'objective, scientific' support for TFT.

Many of TFT's critics are

specialists in anxiety disorders and have themselves been working very hard,

doing research on therapies, such as cognitive behavioral approaches. Rich

McNally has been involved in leading edge research on panic disorder. James

Herbert is involved in research on some of the newer CBT approaches, such as

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) which is showing great promise. The

difference is, we don't see them out there making grandiose claims,

developing businesses, trade secrets, offering weekend certification

workshops, etc. Instead, they are doing their homework in the form of

well-designed studies. Go to the ACT website and you'll see a real

difference. Alot of the information is right there for people to read, even

some of the actual protocols. They present the research evidence that is

available thus far and don't make grandiose claims.

By contrast, proponents of "energy" and "power" therapies came along,

claiming to have a new "paradigm" and making grandiose claims of superiority

over these approaches, without adequate evidence to support their claims.

What this comes down to is that they are seeking acceptance they have not

earned and in many cases, when they are criticized, claiming to be victims

of a closed-minded, turf-protecting establishment. Contrary to this popular

belief, turf protection of academic psychologists is ~not~ the issue here,

no matter how loudly Callahan and others proclaim that it is. What these

critics are saying is that the burden of proof is on proponents to support

their claims and to do the same kind of homework that has been done for the

CBT approaches. Until this is done, proponents have no right to make such

claims. As I currently see things, this is quite a reasonable position to

take.

Many pseudoscientists promoting incredible belief systems point to these

historical examples of Columbus or Galileo to attempt to legitimize their

own, but the fact that people have been wrong in the past, doesn't make for

a very credible argument. As Carl Sagan has noted: "They laughed at

Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But

they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." The real issue here isn't whether the

belief is a departure from an accepted paradigm; the issue is how people are

going about gathering evidence (or not) for the radical theory.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I will close with an excerpt from a posting by Monica Pignotti on the Yahoo list TFT-ALGO. She is the person who was one of Roger Callahan's inner circle, and an adherent of TFT (including its secret Voice Technology).

Was Pignotti ever an adherent of Voice Technology? Best I recall, she never supported that.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Was Pignotti ever an adherent of Voice Technology? Best I recall, she never supported that.

Yes, she was definitely an adherent -- in that she was a leading practitioner until she became disenchanted.

She tells the story -- repeated several times on the TFT-ALGO list at Yahoo and elsewhere -- that she had hoped her research would support VT (I refer to the study that blinded participants receiving either VT-derived or randomly-derived 'algorhythms,' and compared outcomes**). It didn't support VT, and she eventually bailed on the entire TFT enterprise.

Here is one of the tellings of the story, from her blog at Psychjourney. I add emphasis to the part that sketches out her adherence to VT, in the context of her understanding of the bias of allegiance effects†:

VT is claimed to give people precise individualized

sequences of meridian points that they are then

instructed to tap on. What my results demonstrate is

that one can get the same results from completely

randomly selected sequences, costing nothing to

produce, as one gets from the $100,000 VT. There is no

difference. People might be wondering what kind of

impact this has had on the VT community. One VT

practitioner did resign along with me because of this.

However, for the vast majority of VT practitioners that

were still practicing, it has been business as usual,

even after the announcement of my publication. [i

should note that of the 25-30 people who trained in VT,

only around 12 still practice it, so others have become

disillusioned for various reasons as well]. I have

received no requests from the VT community to view a

preprint of my article. Apparently, they want to

pretend that it doesn't exist, but wishing doesn't make

it so. Most likely if any do bother to read it, they

will come up with a way to rationalize and explain it

all away.

I did want to make all this widely known on the

internet, though, because I know that many people are

now knowledgeable enough to do websearches when

learning more about various topics. If people look

into TFT and VT doing Google searches on "Thought Field

Therapy" or "Voice Technology", I want them to be able

to go beyond the grandiose claims being made and to

know that there is another side to this story. Brandon

Gaudiano and Paul Lee's websites do an excellent job of

this and I wish to make a contribution to this as

someone who has had personal experience in the

"Granfalloon" of the TFT world, as well as having done

research.

It has been noted that many studies done by proponents

of various therapies that do not come out favorably,

suffer from "file drawer" syndrome. That is, the

results never get made public. Having had this

experience, I can now understand why this is.

It was

very difficult for me, after having had such a strong

and very public commitment commitment (financially,

intellectually and emotionally) to have to let people

know that I had been wrong

. It's much easier to

rationalize away the results and I fell into that trap

for awhile. However, there came a time in my

involvement with TFT and VT that too much wasn't adding

up and I realized that I could no longer ignore it, if

I wanted to maintain any kind of integrity and self-

respect.

** For those who would like to read the study, it is published in the Spring/Summer 2005 issue of The Scientific Review Of Mental Health Practice, under the title "Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology vs. Random Meridian Point Sequences: A Single-blind Controlled Experiment."

† Allegiance effects are a kind of confirmation bias . . . 'investigators commonly find the most effective treatment is the one to which they hold a theoretical allegiance.' [link]

[Ellen Stuttle]

Was Pignotti ever an adherent of Voice Technology? Best I recall, she never supported that.

Yes, she was definitely an adherent -- in that she was a leading practitioner until she became disenchanted.

She tells the story -- repeated several times on the TFT-ALGO list at Yahoo and elsewhere -- that she had hoped her research would support VT (I refer to the study that blinded participants receiving either VT-derived or randomly-derived 'algorhythms,' and compared outcomes**). It didn't support VT, and she eventually bailed on the entire TFT enterprise.

Thanks, William.

I'd forgotten that Pignotti could ever have been described as an "adherent" of VT. I'd thought that she became suspicious as soon as she learned how the VT analysis was done and decided right then to run the experiment comparing results using individualized versus random tapping sequences.

In your explorings of the history, have you come across anyone's revealing the "secret" of VT? Last I was following proceedings on TFT-ALGO, Pignotti still wouldn't say, since those who took the training had been sworn not to reveal the details. She only said that it wasn't the obvious possibility (sine-wave analysis of the voice).

Ellen