Five Minute Phobia Cure

[Reidy]

If, as you point out, empirical studies can be biased, can reach wrong conclusions or can be superseded, how would you know this if not from better empirical studies? This looks like a textbook stolen concept. I never meant to say that one should not be skeptical of any particular study, but only that to be skeptical of them in general gets you into logical difficulties.

[william.scherk]

Regarding Callahan's book, he [Nathaniel Branden] 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.

It would be great if you could dig up a quote and reference. I found a fairly plain statement from Branden here (emphases added):

[Q:] What kind of new research is being done on raising self-esteem?

[A:]To name only one development, I have become very interested in the field of energy psychology. It is based on the techniques of Eastern medicine, in which you harness the body’s own energy system to heal emotional problems.

Our bodies have meridians, or pathways, through which energy flows. When there is an imbalance or blockage in the flow, different types of emotional disturbances appear.

Our bodies have meridians, Brant, through which energy flows. Imbalances or blockages lead to emotional disturbances.

Gah.

[Brant Gaede]

There is nothing wrong per se with using TFT techniques in psychotherapy. If one says NO! to them one would really be saying NO! to psychotherapy generally which constitutes various types of conversation in an attempt to get a desired or acceptable result as defined and understood by therapist and client. Client: "I've got a problem." Therapist: "Let's go from there."

--Brant

[william.scherk]

There is nothing wrong per se with using TFT techniques in psychotherapy.

This thread began with Dr Hardin touting TFT on his personal authority, and subsequently devolved into "Branden says it's great. Disregard criticism and avoid rational tests of its claims, on his authority." In other words, "Buy my magic pig. He's the best magic pig on earth. Don't criticize. Anyone who suspects my pig is not magic is full of shit and mean and insulting and ridiculous."

If one says NO! to them one would really be saying NO! to psychotherapy generally which constitutes various types of conversation in an attempt to get a desired or acceptable result as defined and understood by therapist and client.

Nope. One would be saying, "Not convinced that the pig is magic."

Consider the crust, Brant. TFT has little or nothing to do with conversation. It has to do with Miracles, boxed and sold -- a procedure that involves meridians, 'energy,' chakras, and a mountains of irrational gush. This is all magical thinking. I am boggled that Objectivish people can be gulled by magical pig claims -- moreover that they reject a priori any attempts to critically examine the pig.

Client: "I've got a problem." Therapist: "Let's go from there."

Nope.

Client: "I've got a phobia."

Therapist: "I can fix it in five minutes!"

[Selene]

William:

My therapists better than your therapist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1g3ENYxg9k

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis H,

I had never thought much about this on the Branden end, but I have come across this under another name in my random surfing for knowledge.

What I came across is called EFT - Emotional Freedom Technique, and it is based on tapping.

I haven't tried it, but I have met some people who swear by it.

It makes sense that there is something to it since all emotions prompt muscular reactions. And it is well-known that you can change your own feelings (for a short time) by simulating the pertinent muscle reactions. If you force a smile on your face for a long time, you start feeling cheerful, etc.

I believe releasing muscle tensions through tapping could have some kind of effect in this sense.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Consider the crust, Brant. TFT has little or nothing to do with conversation. It has to do with Miracles, boxed and sold -- a procedure that involves meridians, 'energy,' chakras, and a mountains of irrational gush. This is all magical thinking. I am boggled that Objectivish people can be gulled by magical pig claims -- moreover that they reject a priori any attempts to critically examine the pig.

So, you reject psychotherapy. You do understand the worthlessness of having a conversation with someone on an "I hate psychotherapy" crusade--"it's all crap," if that's not my opinion? Sentence-completion is no less a "magical pig," for instance. I could go on, but what's the point?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding Callahan's book, he [Nathaniel Branden] 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.

It would be great if you could dig up a quote and reference. I found a fairly plain statement from Branden here (emphases added):

I've just manually reviewed 6500 consecutive posts on Nathaniel's old Yahoo Group list and haven't found it yet. I suspect I'll find it in the next several thousand. The search function doesn't work there any more unless you refer to a particular post by number.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

This thread began with Dr Hardin touting TFT on his personal authority, and subsequently devolved into "Branden says it's great. Disregard criticism and avoid rational tests of its claims, on his authority." In other words, "Buy my magic pig. He's the best magic pig on earth. Don't criticize. Anyone who suspects my pig is not magic is full of shit and mean and insulting and ridiculous."

Wow! Mr. Scherk has clearly decided to mount a propaganda campaign against Energy Psychology. He’s going to save the world from the Cult of the Mystic Tappers. You have to wonder what would motivate someone to work so hard to discourage people from trying a harmless therapeutic technique that has worked so amazingly well to relieve suffering for thousands of patients. It is as if he is personally disturbed by the fact that the methods of Energy Psychology help people.

Personally, I cannot fathom it. I don’t want to even try to fathom it.

What is the nature of a creature in which the sight of a value arouses hatred and the desire to destroy? In the most profound sense of the term, such a creature is a killer, not a physical, but a metaphysical one—it is not an enemy of your values, but of all values, it is an enemy of anything that enables men to survive, it is an enemy of life as such and of everything living.

Ayn Rand, The Age of Envy

[Reidy]

Personally, I cannot fathom it. I don’t want to even try to fathom it.

If you say so.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've just manually reviewed 6500 consecutive posts on Nathaniel's old Yahoo Group list and haven't found it yet. I suspect I'll find it in the next several thousand. The search function doesn't work there any more unless you refer to a particular post by number.

Can you search by post author? If so, search for "Pignotti" -- Monica Pignotti, who was a chief assistant of Callahan's and practitioner of TFT for a time until she became disenchanted by Callahan's starting to make extreme claims, and to tout his expensive (and apparently ersatz) Voice Tehnique (at which time NB distanced from Callahan, too).

The time frame would be before mid-2004, which is when I started posting there for awhile. Monica had by then set up her own list -- of which I was also a member. This was before she parted with Callahan.

I didn't know the old Yahoo! group was still accessible. I thought that RCR had taken it down and haven't looked to see if it could still be accessed on my groups page. Lo and behold, it's still there and can be accessed.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Consider the crust, Brant. TFT has little or nothing to do with conversation. It has to do with Miracles, boxed and sold -- a procedure that involves meridians, 'energy,' chakras, and a mountains of irrational gush. This is all magical thinking. I am boggled that Objectivish people can be gulled by magical pig claims -- moreover that they reject a priori any attempts to critically examine the pig.

Humans have bodies. Emotions are psychosomatic. Phobias are psychosomatic. Traumatic "nexes" (my term) are psychosomatic. Question: Do you consider meditation "magical thinking"? Or do you think there are any benefits from it?

Granted, the surrounding language of Energy Therapy, and the theory, tends to be "mountains of irrational gush." Doesn't mean there's no benefit, at least for some people, from the techniques.

One warning, for people interested: Monica Pignotti, mentioned in the post above, and others, have concluded after doing some structured testing, that working out a specific tapping sequence isn't necessary. That's basically extra money spent for a unneeded "frill."

Also, often there is relapse in cases where the technique has been helpful -- as, sensibly, would be expected. Repeat the technique as needed.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Personally, I cannot fathom it. I don't want to even try to fathom it.

If you say so.

The placebo effect can be very powerful but tends to wear off in other venues. If it works may also be the therapeutic equivalent of "I've been saved!"

--Brant

Dennis shouldn't have a religious attitude toward this subject

[Rich Engle]

NB turned me on to this work, the protocols, etc. That was some years back. I think one thing he said was more or less that it was something that he added to his toolkit. And that psychotherapists should have a lot of stuff in their toolkit.<BR><BR>The "Basic Balancing" exercise (this is done before tapping) is very easy to learn and it does seem to help. It reroutes your chakra points. It only takes two minutes to do.<BR><BR>I went deeper into it and did the tapping (which you can do on yourself). I think that there is a way it can work. Like all things, though, and for sure this one, you have to be very persistent in so-doing. If you read the book to which Dennis refers, you will see that the process is pretty complex, off-the-rip. <BR><BR>I do believe that results can be had from it (I got some) but most people that I have ever talked to about it have never really gone into it enough in the form of executing it to any level at all. It is one of those things where talking about it is one thing, doing it another, you shouldn't be talking about it unless you have tried to do it, and doing it requires a good deal of time and understanding.<BR><BR>So if people offer opinions about it, and they have not invested into the process, I can't talk to them about something they have not attempted. <BR><BR>I got turned on to this stuff via NB, and I was working on it for a number of reasons (part of which incorporating it, at that time, into sales training--for the reps to relieve tension). I am pretty sure I remember when I asked him--it was when he did a session at the Learning Annex in Toronto--it was a big group (that whole weekend was fun) and he took questions. I asked him like "what are you seeing right now that is new and interesting to you in psychology" or some such, and he answered it publicly--a couple of things. Golman's work on Emotional Intelligence, and Callahan. The Golman was out of CWRU (where I lived, Cleveland), and I read that too.<BR><BR>rde

[Rich Engle]

Sorry for the messy reply--the text editor is acting weird on me, probably my fault over here.

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry for the messy reply--the text editor is acting weird on me, probably my fault over here.

rde

Rich,

I fixed it. (Turned on HTML in the post.)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Nathaniel Branden is basically ignorant of scientific methodology and empiricism in psychology.

That’s a rather harsh way of putting it. He’s just not an academic, that would have been a completely different career path for him. Nevertheless, I once saw him give a talk at a hospital, and it was clear that the Doctor who sponsored the talk was more that type (getting grants, doing studies), and had been influenced by him.

"Branden says it's great. Disregard criticism and avoid rational tests of its claims, on his authority."

When I heard Dr. Branden discuss it he didn’t use the argument from authority or just “say it’s great”. I'm not sure Dennis has crossed that line either. Branden said it had worked for him (he gave a specific example) and suggested having an open mind about it, this in response to a questioner whose tone was rather like yours. He also wrote positively about Rolfing in one of his books (Honoring the Self, I think), deliciously satirized here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q3doiKoli0Yes, that's Rosa Klebb of From Russia with Love

Now if Dennis comes out for Homeopathy, I will say let him have it.

[william.scherk]

Regarding Callahan's book, he [Nathaniel Branden] 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.

It would be great if you could dig up a quote and reference. I found a fairly plain statement from Branden here (emphases added):

I've just manually reviewed 6500 consecutive posts on Nathaniel's old Yahoo Group list and haven't found it yet. I suspect I'll find it in the next several thousand. The search function doesn't work there any more unless you refer to a particular post by number.

Maybe this is the Branden post you recall, Brant (I found it by a bit of googling on 'site:yahoo.com "nathaniel branden" tapping callahan' and then poking about):

Re: [nathaniel_branden] Tapping the Healer Within

Apart from the fact that Callahan is the number one innovator in the field of

energy psychology, one reason I suggest that people begin with his "Tapping

the Healer Within," is that Callahan, more than anyone else I know of working

in the field, attempts to put his work on a scientific foundation. This does

not mean that I think the other schools have nothing of value to offer,

however. My suggestion is: read Callahan, check out the others such as EFT,

and then decide for yourself.

Nathaniel Branden

It is dated December 1, 2002. Link.

Edited September 26, 2010 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

That's it, but Callahan and science would be an oxymoron.

--Brant

surprised it was so long ago and that I remembered it as well as I did, but that's not for the five minute; perhaps Branden said the same thing later about the other book

Edited September 26, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

Ellen twice mentions Monica Pignotti . . .

Monica Pignotti, who was a chief assistant of Callahan's and practitioner of TFT for a time until she became disenchanted by Callahan's starting to make extreme claims, and to tout his expensive (and apparently ersatz) Voice Tehnique (at which time NB distanced from Callahan, too).

The time frame would be before mid-2004

Yes on the time frame. Pignotti posted her "Why Roger Callahan and I have Split" to the Nathanial Branden Yahoo list on March 2, 2004. I haven't as yet found a post or posts in which Nathaniel Branden clearly distanced himself from Callahan. Perhaps Ellen could help out tracking down the reference.

Ellen's take on Pignotti's repudiation of Thought Field Therapy and Voice Technology is reasonably close to the the actual events.

Pignotti's complete repudiation followed her single-blind study, detailed in the post referenced above. She also writes of her TFT experience here. See also her article "Callahan fails to meet the burden of proof for Thought Field Therapy claims,'** published in the peer-reviewed Journal Of Clinical Psychology.

One warning, for people interested: Monica Pignotti, mentioned in the post above, and others, have concluded after doing some structured testing, that working out a specific tapping sequence isn't necessary. That's basically extra money spent for a unneeded "frill."

The important point skeptics raise, and one that hasn't quite penetrated Dr Hardin's defense ramparts, is that TFT's success in reducing distress should not -- without further study -- be claimed to uniquely originate in the technique itself without comparing TFT success to other modalities.

To put it another way, TFT adherents suggest that 5 minute phobia cure 'successes' cannot be attributed to characteristics shared by other treatments for phobia - that the successes are revolutionary and better than anything else. This is the hinge for my questions and critique.

If it is claimed that the 5 minute phobia cure is better than imaginal exposure, for example, then the burden of proof is on those making the claim. So, if Dr Hardin or anyone else claims TFT/5 minute phobia cure is 'superior' to extant, empirically-supported therapies -- the burden of proof is on Dr Hardin. To date, Dr Hardin has blustered and issued dire maunderings and appeals to authority.

As for Dr Hardin's notions that opposition to inflated claims is 'propaganda,' the insinuation that Scherk is evul for countering such claims, the implication that critical inquiry is something Ayn Rand would decry as 'anti-life,' this is sad. I don't understand how questioning inflated and as-yet unsupported claims can be swept off the table by those who style themselves objective thinkers.

The further suggestion that Nathaniel Branden's support of Callahan is probative? Not credible.

____________

** [Abstract] Callahan's response evades the key issues raised by merely restating and elaborating upon what has already been said, providing citations that are out of context and irrelevant to the issues at hand, and misrepresenting what was actually said by his critics and me and the authors of articles he cites. He spends paragraphs refuting "straw men." He provides additional anecdotes, which offer no convincing evidence for his claims. His critics have expressed concern that Callahan and Thought Field Therapy (TFT) proponents will cite his response article, as published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, to promote TFT, as TFT proponents have repeatedly done for the non-peer-reviewed earlier issue devoted to TFT. Callahan has been given an unprecedented opportunity to present his work in a reputable journal without prior peer review and has failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims, thus undermining his own claim, that his work has been rejected solely as a result of bias against innovation.

Edited September 26, 2010 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

Maybe this is the Branden post you recall, Brant (I found it by a bit of googling on 'site:yahoo.com "nathaniel branden" tapping callahan' and then poking about):

Re: [nathaniel_branden] Tapping the Healer Within

Apart from the fact that Callahan is the number one innovator in the field of

energy psychology, one reason I suggest that people begin with his "Tapping

the Healer Within," is that Callahan, more than anyone else I know of working

in the field, attempts to put his work on a scientific foundation. This does

not mean that I think the other schools have nothing of value to offer,

however. My suggestion is: read Callahan, check out the others such as EFT,

and then decide for yourself.

Nathaniel Branden

It is dated December 1, 2002. Link.

Re "attempts to put his work on a scientific foundation" -- that's indicative of how little NB knows about scientific foundations.

Callahan talks about "fields," intimating but misusing the physics concept.

And vaguely waves a hand toward Bohm (this is one of the many examples of Bohm being adopted for wafty purposes).

And I think, though I don't remember this for sure, pulls in Sheldrake -- if not in that book, then somewhere else.

Oh, and I think classifies the idea of the meridian system as scientific. Again, I'd have to double-check on that.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen twice mentions Monica Pignotti . . .

Monica Pignotti, who was a chief assistant of Callahan's and practitioner of TFT for a time until she became disenchanted by Callahan's starting to make extreme claims, and to tout his expensive (and apparently ersatz) Voice Tehnique (at which time NB distanced from Callahan, too).

The time frame would be before mid-2004

Yes on the time frame. Pignotti posted her "Why Roger Callahan and I have Split" to the Nathanial Branden Yahoo list on March 2, 2004. I haven't as yet found a post or posts in which Nathaniel Branden clearly distanced himself from Callahan. Perhaps Ellen could help out tracking down the reference.

Ellen's take on Pignotti's repudiation of Thought Field Therapy and Voice Technology is reasonably close to the the actual events.

Pignotti's complete repudiation followed her single-blind study, detailed in the post referenced above. She also writes of her TFT experience here. See also her article "Callahan fails to meet the burden of proof for Thought Field Therapy claims,'** published in the peer-reviewed Journal Of Clinical Psychology.

Best I recall (from stuff on her list), Pignotti hasn't made any "complete repudiation" of the basic technique to this day, and she didn't completely repudiate Callahan simply because of her single-blind study. Lots more water under the dam happened afterward.

I don't know if Nathaniel ever "clearly distanced himself from Callahan" on his own list. I stopped reading that list about the time I started following PARC stuff on the old SOLOHQ. Nor did I use the adjective "clearly." That's WSS's addition. I haven't heard of NB's being quite clear about it in public. I think he just hasn't talked about it -- but I don't know details of things he's said when publicly questioned.

Ellen

[rodney203]

,,,,,,,,,,,,Pignotti hasn't made any "complete repudiation",,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,don't know if Nathaniel ever "clearly distanced,,,,,,,,,,,,

William and Ellen,

The irrational will not take clear, fact based, stands. That is not the nature of irrationality.

[Ellen Stuttle]

,,,,,,,,,,,,Pignotti hasn't made any "complete repudiation",,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,don't know if Nathaniel ever "clearly distanced,,,,,,,,,,,,

William and Ellen,

The irrational will not take clear, fact based, stands. That is not the nature of irrationality.

Hello? Before you go accusing Monica Pignotti of irrationality, I suggest really looking into the history of it. She's in the category of scientific hero(ine) for her pursuing of data and willingness to change a former belief and to take a stand against someone with whom she'd formerly been a chief associate -- and to get incredible flak for doing so.

I don't recall her ever completely repudiating the basic technique -- i.e., the tapping. And wouldn't expect that she would, since the basic technique can be helpful with anxiety and phobia and stress counteracting -- as has been known for ages.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Best I recall (from stuff on her list), Pignotti hasn't made any "complete repudiation" of the basic technique to this day,

See the "Myths" article I referenced above. In the first paragraph, there is this statement: "I completely left and repudiated TFT and Voice Technology (VT) 6 years ago in March, 2004 and since that time have published numerous critical analyses of TFT and also an account of my experience with TFT and Voice Technology."

and she didn't completely repudiate Callahan simply because of her single-blind study.

Right. She did her study in 2001.

Lots more water under the dam happened afterward.

Yup. Which Pignotti details . . . for those interested in the water, the dam and the so on, it shows Callahan to be distinctly blind to what her findings mean, if not actively dishonest, in my opinion.

I am just now reading posts on the TFT-ALGO list in which she announced her decision. Sad how some used the event to attack her integrity. Since then, she has been subject to some rather unpleasant internet 'attacks' accusing her of varied crimes and misdemeanors. All false. Very sad and I hope not indicative of much more than that a few TFT nutcases wished to discredit her by means foul. She is still fighting a rear-guard action to get rid of some of the worst calumnies, which is sad and grotesque in context of a scientific dispute, but par for the course in the ongoing Objectivish Snarkout.

I don't know if Nathaniel ever "clearly distanced himself from Callahan" on his own list.

I wondered. You wrote "Monica Pignotti . . . became disenchanted . . . (at which time NB distanced from Callahan, too)."

Any clearer recollection of how Branden 'distanced' from Callahan, or clues as to how the distancing was made manifest?

On his website today there are four references to Callahan, all fairly laudatory (but, I note, dating from 1998, as far as I can tell). I suppose someone might send him a note and ask at what distance he presently finds himself from Callahan, but if I were him, I would keep mum on the subject and not get dragged off into another Objectivish skirmish; I certainly don't think he would repudiate Callahan as has Pignotti -- he has probably had enough repudiation for several lifetimes.

I guess Nathaniel Branden could be said to have distanced from Callahan simply by saying nothing in support of him in the aftermath of the Pignotti repudiation. Indeed, he subscribed to the TFT-ALGO list, but gave no opinion there (as I can yet find, anyhow).