Five Minute Phobia Cure

[Reidy]

This talk about psychological reversal should be pretty straightforward to test. It claims a correlation between well-understood physical events - electric fields - and therapeutic outcomes. TFT practitioners would identify the successes and failures from a randomly-chosen group of their current and former patients. Duly blinded investigators would measure the physical quantities. Whether these electrical events are the cause or the effect of the outcome, you'll find a correlation if the theory is a sound one and not if it isn't. Better yet, measure these people before they undergo TFT and again afterward.

This is how science is done. Call me a doodoo-faced rotten egg if you will.

[9thdoctor]

Consider the loopy explication of the 'reversal' -- it is a reversal of the energy flow. The question is obvious: What freaking energy flow? What evidence is there for the freaking existence of the notion of the 'energy flow' in the first place?

This reminds me of the notion of the Reactive Mind from Scientology. The Wikipedia article isn't detailed enough and I'm disinclined to reread up on it to further explain the comparison. It's nonsense, but it provides an answer to any objection.

[Brant Gaede]

If you are blocked on something while investigating why you feel and act the way you do, try a few sentence completions.

Callahan's speculations are not science, but a scientific approach to Callahan ...

--Brant

if it makes someone feel better tap away--just don't charge for it; charge for the other stuff

[Dennis Hardin]

"It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives"

Has it not occured to you, dear doctor, that I don't have a problem? What am I supposed to tap for, ferchrissakes? I don't have anxieties or social phobias or vague psychic pain or subsidiary torments.

Oh, I’m sorry. You are the one exception to every human being I have ever met. You have absolutely no problems. You are John Galt. “The face without pain, or fear or guilt.” But you have plenty of time to deter others who have the courage to admit they are human from seeking a very simple remedy for their problems.

Obviously you have no clue about how ridiculous you sound.

As for "Do you really think Nathaniel Branden would incorporate Callahan’s methods into his own therapeutic practice if they did not usually achieve extraordinary results?"

This is an argument from authority, doc.

It is not an argument, at all. This is not a debate. I would not waste my time debating with someone as ignorant as you. I am offering help to people who have the courage to admit they are not perfect, asking them not to be discouraged by your cynicism and negativity.

[Dennis Hardin]

Consider the loopy explication of the 'reversal' -- it is a reversal of the energy flow. The question is obvious: What freaking energy flow? What evidence is there for the freaking existence of the notion of the 'energy flow' in the first place?

This reminds me of the notion of the Reactive Mind from Scientology. The Wikipedia article isn't detailed enough and I'm disinclined to reread up on it to further explain the comparison. It's nonsense, but it provides an answer to any objection.

Since you are so fond of wikipedia articles, here is another one:

In biology, energy is an attribute of all biological systems from the biosphere to the smallest living organism. Within an organism it is responsible for growth and development of a biological cell or an organelle of a biological organism. Energy is thus often said to be stored by cells in the structures of molecules of substances such as carbohydrates (including sugars), lipids, and proteins, which release energy when reacted with oxygen in respiration. In human terms, the human equivalent (H-e) (Human energy conversion) indicates, for a given amount of energy expenditure, the relative quantity of energy needed for human metabolism, assuming an average human energy expenditure of 12,500kJ per day and a basal metabolic rate of 80 watts. For example, if our bodies run (on average) at 80 watts, then a light bulb running at 100 watts is running at 1.25 human equivalents (100 ÷ 80) i.e. 1.25 H-e. For a difficult task of only a few seconds' duration, a person can put out thousands of watts, many times the 746 watts in one official horsepower. For tasks lasting a few minutes, a fit human can generate perhaps 1,000 watts. For an activity that must be sustained for an hour, output drops to around 300; for an activity kept up all day, 150 watts is about the maximum. The human equivalent assists understanding of energy flows in physical and biological systems by expressing energy units in human terms: it provides a “feel” for the use of a given amount of energy.

[Brant Gaede]

I once experienced a tremendous amount of energy pouring out of my body through my fingertips. I thought it was electrical in nature.

[Brant Gaede]

Everything I have read about Branden's current approach to therapy is he does not use tapping or the like exclusively but mixes it up with other techniques on an ad hoc and as needed basis. WSS is actually attacking the whole notion of psychotherapy without admitting that at all. Psychotherapy is an art regardless of how much--and it's not much and never will be--science can be put into it or squeezed out. Because psychotherapy is so problematic my own suggested approach for someone thinking they need help is (1) self help; (2) talking it out with a significant other; (3) talking it out with a counselor; (4) writing to Dear Abby (optional); (5) going to a therapist whom you have reason to go to other than these first four if they didn't do much good. I'd certainly never go to see Roger Callahan.

--Brant

Edited October 2, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

Sometimes testimonials have a value above and beyond the obvious.

One of the world's leading practitioners and trainers in TFT has a full page of glowing tributes to the effectiveness of TFT. Here is the one that made the biggest impression on me.

From Dr Ng's Testimonials page.

"I certainly saw the efficacy of TFT demonstrated in a powerful way.

Our pet, a lizard, had been acting depressed and anxious for the past

6-9 months. While this may sound strange, he would become very

anxious when it came time for him to eat and he gradually ate less and

less and required a lot of time-consuming coaxing and reassurance to

eat. He spent most of his time in his "box" in his cage, showing

little interest in the world outside his cage, and not getting the

time he needed under his heat lamp so his body was able to properly

digest his food. In years past, he'd been very active and

instinctively headed for the heat lamp after eating. After Dr. Ng held

and tapped for him, for depression, trauma, etc... he began "perking

up". The improvement was gradual and incremental, but by the 3rd day

following treatment, the improvement was unmistakable. He's more

active now than he's ever been, dashing to explore new territory

around the house when allowed, and completely fearless in his feeding

cage. And he heads for the heat lamp after eating, each time. It's

certainly not a placebo effect with a lizard! Our whole family is

relieved and delighted with the dramatic improvement."

[Reidy]

Food anxieties...hours under the sunlamp...diva-esqe demands for attention...frenetic boogieing when he's in the mood. All that and he wears leather head-to-toe. That lizard is gay.

[rodney203]

Are you guys selling popcorn to this event?

[william.scherk]

WSS is actually attacking the whole notion of psychotherapy without admitting that at all.

I don't have an aversion to the whole notion of psychotherapy, Brant. I think we can find a difference between a therapy 'art' that is modest in its claims -- or that limits its claims -- and a therapy that claims to be revolutionary and better than anything else on the market.

I cut my skeptical teeth in the 1990s on a really gruesome outbreak of irrational and dangerous psychotherapy, Recovered Memory Therapy. I spent a solid five years 'in the trenches' so to speak, in the real world and online, doing my best to counter that madness.

Psychotherapy offers hope that distress can be understood and relieved. Whether depression, phobia, anxiety or even Borderline Personality Disorder, there are thousands of arts offered for sale to those who suffer. I am supportive of those therapies that are advertised with their limitations spelled out. I am also interested in the clinical/research gap, which showed itself most starkly in the RMT horror. There is tension between the two poles.

It seems to me that one can be an eclectic practitioner like Nathaniel Branden (or even Doctor Hardin) and use a variety of tools to help clients with their distress. The issues for me are concerned with the age-old epistemic puzzles -- "how do you know/believe?" When the claims of TFT are examined rationally, they dissolve.

So, in the context of the Five Minute Phobia Cure and TFT encrustations, what interests me is how we can tell the difference between therapies that work as advertised and those that don't. I want reliable knowledge and I certainly haven't found it in the hucksterism and snake oil offered by the worst of the TFT proponents.

I have empathy for Doctor Hardin. He wants to help his clients. He wants to use the best tools he can find to give that help. My points have been addressed to the paucity of support for the claims made; if I could start again, I would probably ask Doctor Hardin how he would know that he is wrong about TFT, or ask him if he was familiar with critical inquiry into TFT.

It surprised me that he set the tone for discussion with all out boosterism, and has since dissolved into irrational denunciations of 'evul' anti-life Scherk fools and so on.

[Brant Gaede]

What I did with Branden was to bring a problem to a head then present it and then we dealt with it. It might have all been relief of the tension generated by the problem thus magnified. In that context tapping may have been just as good as something else, say sentence completion. I don't see why a placebo effect wouldn't work and maybe a lot of it across these various therapies was/is from a placebo effect or one approach being as good as another. The placebo effect in medicine can be very strong, but tends to be short lived. It peters out. The longevity of such an effect in psychotherapy might not matter as it is as I've described above greatly in the here and now. So that's a one-two: present a problem then deal with the problem. I feel the therapist should give credit for the effort of the client too; it ain't all him the great therapist. Branden always said his clients told him what was wrong, seldom him them. The really big problem is after you've dealt with your problem(s) is now what in your human living. I felt a lot of people didn't want to work in our Branden group because dealing with their problems meant they'd then have to go out and live their lives differently. I always felt Branden fell somewhat flat here with his your taking responsibility for your life--that he wasn't so good in helping you prime your pump. If I were a therapist my basic orientation would be the life you are living and what is good and bad about it and what are you going to do about it, how and why. The morality! Oh, the morality!!!

Barbara Branden once sat in (late summer 1976) our NYC group and one of Nathaniel's clients made very racist statements. Branden told him that how he reacted to his statements there in his therapy group might be quite different than how he'd react if accosted on the street and told the same things. Barbara strongly agreed, meaning she had really bad thoughts and feelings about what the client had said and wasn't sanctioning any of it. I don't remember who spoke first, Barbara or Nathaniel. I think it was her. She did make the concluding statement regarding that. I tell this story to point out that a therapist has to sometimes if not oftentimes refrain from out-right moral judgments to avoid freezing therapeutic progress, especially if he is dealing with problems on an ad hoc instead of an integrated basis. Branden was a very clean therapist. Your problems were your problems and he was there to help, but not to take them home with him. Considering that then he probably had two weekly groups and one monthly, that would have been an absolute necessity.

--Brant

[Pignotti]

This is hooey of the highest order. A so-called 'psychological reversal' is a claim made after failure of TFT tapping.

If you can't tap your troubles away, you see, it is your own fault.

Once again, the silly fool has no idea what he is talking about.

Once again, he is the cyber equivalent of Ellsworth Toohey doing all he can to discourage people from pursuing individual growth and achievement, giving them excuses not to take actions that could potentially improve their lives. It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives. But he wants to raise a quasi-scientific smokescreen to prevent others from doing it. He is enshrining his own ignorance as a self-righteous bulwark in the path of those who might wish to try Callahan’s approach. If this is not pure, unvarnished evil, I would like to know what on this earth would qualify as evil.

Hello Dr. Hardin. Please allow me to introduce myself. Hope you've guessed my name (and no, it's not Robert Stadler). He and I look nothing alike. But seriously, if you can tear yourself away from your ad hominem attacks on Bill Scherk, would you care to have a discussion with me? I pursued this technique for seven years and trained to its highest level, practiced it, taught it and found it to be not as advertised. Testimonials are not enough.

Why TFT is attractive to so many Objectivists (not all or most, by any means, but quite a few) is a question I have done some puzzling over and and I think it may relate back to some misinterpretations of Rand's philosophy about what is and is not self evident. TFT's results are not self-evident because there are too many alternative explanations that have not been ruled out and the only way to rule them out is to conduct well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing TFT tapping to tapping on sham points and/or sham sequences that were not obtained through putative "hard science" Callahan claims he has. Waite and Holder did this and I did this with regard to sham points and I did it with regard to treatment sequences Callahan thought were so critical and the basis for his $100,000 Voice Technology and ended up with null results, which have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Did you really think that you could come onto an Objectivist forum and not have your claims challenged?

[Robert Campbell]

TFT's results are not self-evident because there are too many alternative explanations that have not been ruled out and the only way to rule them out is to conduct well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing TFT tapping to tapping on sham points and/or sham sequences that were not obtained through putative "hard science" Callahan claims he has. Waite and Holder did this and I did this with regard to sham points and I did it with regard to treatment sequences Callahan thought were so critical and the basis for his $100,000 Voice Technology and ended up with null results, which have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Welcome to OL!

The passage I put in bold succinctly explains why we need experiments (and other structured empirical investigations) in applied psychology.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

This is hooey of the highest order. A so-called 'psychological reversal' is a claim made after failure of TFT tapping.

If you can't tap your troubles away, you see, it is your own fault.

Once again, the silly fool has no idea what he is talking about.

Once again, he is the cyber equivalent of Ellsworth Toohey doing all he can to discourage people from pursuing individual growth and achievement, giving them excuses not to take actions that could potentially improve their lives. It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives. But he wants to raise a quasi-scientific smokescreen to prevent others from doing it. He is enshrining his own ignorance as a self-righteous bulwark in the path of those who might wish to try Callahan's approach. If this is not pure, unvarnished evil, I would like to know what on this earth would qualify as evil.

Hello Dr. Hardin. Please allow me to introduce myself. Hope you've guessed my name (and no, it's not Robert Stadler). He and I look nothing alike. But seriously, if you can tear yourself away from your ad hominem attacks on Bill Scherk, would you care to have a discussion with me? I pursued this technique for seven years and trained to its highest level, practiced it, taught it and found it to be not as advertised. Testimonials are not enough.

Why TFT is attractive to so many Objectivists (not all or most, by any means, but quite a few) is a question I have done some puzzling over and and I think it may relate back to some misinterpretations of Rand's philosophy about what is and is not self evident. TFT's results are not self-evident because there are too many alternative explanations that have not been ruled out and the only way to rule them out is to conduct well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing TFT tapping to tapping on sham points and/or sham sequences that were not obtained through putative "hard science" Callahan claims he has. Waite and Holder did this and I did this with regard to sham points and I did it with regard to treatment sequences Callahan thought were so critical and the basis for his $100,000 Voice Technology and ended up with null results, which have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Did you really think that you could come onto an Objectivist forum and not have your claims challenged?

I think the Objectivist connection is through Nathaniel Branden who has been recommending Callahan for one thing or another for decades. I don't think Branden is so strong with this these last few years. I do think there is room for a placebo effect in psychotherapy and tapping might be good for that. I would not consider a therapist to be competent if that weren't mixed in with other things.

To digress: I think the biggest thing unaccounted for in therapy is the beneficial passage of time on psychology as such is affected by greater knowledge and experience and physiological changes. This may be claimed by the therapist as evidence of his effectiveness when it might have happened anyway. The best thing about a therapist is having an ally in dealing with and solving one's problems. But if the therapist is the dominant partner in the relationship it's a big mistake for the client unless that in itself is evidence of a problem needing work and it gets worked on. Simply to go to a therapist and demonstrate a phobia and tap, tap, tap--it's gone!--well, lordy, that's worth twenty bucks and going home.

--Brant

Edited October 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Reidy]

Who in that business works for twenty bucks a session?

[Brant Gaede]

Who in that business works for twenty bucks a session?

If it's the first visit give him a C note--then get out.

--Brant

any more than that try tapping on yourself--who knows?

[rodney203]

Perhaps this is worth mentioning again (for what it's worth):

I think it is unfortunate that possible placebo effects from the "tapping" are apparently being discussed simultaneously with claimed actual physiological causes of relief. I hope that what the detractors here are intending to challenge is the claimed physiological cure aspect, and are clear in their minds on that. On my part, it was never my intention to challenge any placebo claims of the TFT.

If the so called benefits of TFT are only from a placebo effect, then that is a matter for mental health professionals to discuss, i.e.; whether using that method to treat clients is appropriate or ethical. Other than that, perhaps it might have been ok to bring this topic up in the "psychology" section of this forum, if the poster had an interesting aspect of that to share.

On the other hand, if Mr. Hardin did intended to claim an actual physichological cause for a change in a client, then it is right and proper for his claim to have received a VERY skeptical hearing, particularly on an Objectivist forum.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that Mr. Hardin was actually ambiguous in his original posting regarding placebo vs. physical cause. He did not firmly claim either nor both. This was an error in itself which Hardin should have been challenged to clarify before jumping to other conclcusions. Nobody else caught that and made THAT challenge. When people subsequently began challenging TFT "as such", without the clarification, Hardin was given his excuse to be on the defensive- we were just a bunch of mean old Objectivists attacking TFT. It was a grave error to allow anyone to think that we were discussing placebo effects.

[Selene]

This is hooey of the highest order. A so-called 'psychological reversal' is a claim made after failure of TFT tapping.

If you can't tap your troubles away, you see, it is your own fault.

Once again, the silly fool has no idea what he is talking about.

Once again, he is the cyber equivalent of Ellsworth Toohey doing all he can to discourage people from pursuing individual growth and achievement, giving them excuses not to take actions that could potentially improve their lives. It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives. But he wants to raise a quasi-scientific smokescreen to prevent others from doing it. He is enshrining his own ignorance as a self-righteous bulwark in the path of those who might wish to try Callahan's approach. If this is not pure, unvarnished evil, I would like to know what on this earth would qualify as evil.

Hello Dr. Hardin. Please allow me to introduce myself. Hope you've guessed my name (and no, it's not Robert Stadler). He and I look nothing alike. But seriously, if you can tear yourself away from your ad hominem attacks on Bill Scherk, would you care to have a discussion with me? I pursued this technique for seven years and trained to its highest level, practiced it, taught it and found it to be not as advertised. Testimonials are not enough.

Why TFT is attractive to so many Objectivists (not all or most, by any means, but quite a few) is a question I have done some puzzling over and and I think it may relate back to some misinterpretations of Rand's philosophy about what is and is not self evident. TFT's results are not self-evident because there are too many alternative explanations that have not been ruled out and the only way to rule them out is to conduct well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing TFT tapping to tapping on sham points and/or sham sequences that were not obtained through putative "hard science" Callahan claims he has. Waite and Holder did this and I did this with regard to sham points and I did it with regard to treatment sequences Callahan thought were so critical and the basis for his $100,000 Voice Technology and ended up with null results, which have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Did you really think that you could come onto an Objectivist forum and not have your claims challenged?

Welcome to OL Ms. Pignotti:

I have not been participating in this thread, except for a quick comment after Dennis's initial post.

However, I have been peeking in as it has woven between personal and scientific arguments. Ninth Dr. made a reference to a technique in Scientology. You had a brief four or five year involvement with that "group". Additionally, you are familiar with the TFT technique as well as, apparently, you are familiar with being mislabeled and a target of character assassination.

Therefore, our of curiosity, without making this about Dennis, what is:

1) the current evaluation of this technique [you mention a peer review journal, can you provide that reference?];

2) your suggestion as to a study that would test this theory that would be worthwhile to conduct; and

3) your exposition as to what about Ayn's philosophical assertions about what is, and is not, self evident, that leads Objectivists to misinterpretations?

Thanks.

Adam

Edited October 4, 2010 by Selene

[Starbuckle]

Robert Campbell writes: "The passage I put in bold succinctly explains why we need experiments (and other structured empirical investigations) in applied psychology."

What would the experiments be? Therapy? How could you have a study of this that controls for many different individual factors? Or would studies of applied psychology be focusing only on less-complicated, shorter-range stuff?

If a psychologist writes a book based on his considered assessment of years of therapy with patients, encountering different problems and trying different things, does that count as a study of applied psychology?

[Reidy]

#76 proposes one answer to your question. The book you describe counts as a study of applied psychology. It doesn't count as convincing empirical science. The author knows the case studies before the experiment started. No blinds. He chooses which cases to write about and which not. Not a random sample. A book about the cases the author has seen will not provide baseline data about people he hasn't seen. No controls.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Reidy

[9thdoctor]

Did you really think that you could come onto an Objectivist forum and not have your claims challenged?

Welcome to OL. I've seen your name quite a bit lately. I believe WSS wrote that you are an Objectivist, is this accurate? How would you compare TFT to the Scientology "Touch Assist"? That was the first thing I thought of when I looked into it.

[Jerry Biggers]

As to why TFT is not accepted by most professional clinical and academic psychologists, OL readers might want to review the articles listed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Field_Therapy

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/can_we_really_tap_our_problems_away_a_critical_analysis_of_thought_field_th/

http://www.skepdic.com/thoughtfield.html

As these articles and their supporting links point-out, there has been very little, if any, research supporting this therapeutic technique in peer-reviewed academic journals. The curious might wonder why this is so. It is much easier to make extravagant claims to the public and back it up with anecdotal personal testimonies, than it is to submit your theories and evidence to academic scrutiny. Usually, those who avoid this sort of thing are wary of having their claims examined by scientific methods (although, in reply, they sometimes make the specious claim that the professional journals refused to publish their research because of bias against them).

Regarding the "link" of TFT to Objectivism, there is no mystery. Roger Callahan was an early supporter of Objectivism in its formative stages in the late 1950's and 1960's. Nathaniel Branden was (and I believe, still is) a friend of Dr. Callahan. I have the greatist respect for Dr. Branden and his accomplishments in the field of psychology and admire his contributions to Objectivism. Similarly, I do not question the sincerity of Dr. Hardin's support for Thought Field Therapy.

But in the case of TFT, I want to see the peer-reviewed, published evidence for its efficacy in treating phobias and other mental disorders. Additionally, its theoretical foundation needs a lot of refinement, restatement, and/or expansion in order to be taken seriously as an explanation for its claimed results.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

Robert Campbell writes: "The passage I put in bold succinctly explains why we need experiments (and other structured empirical investigations) in applied psychology."

What would the experiments be? Therapy? How could you have a study of this that controls for many different individual factors? Or would studies of applied psychology be focusing only on less-complicated, shorter-range stuff?

If a psychologist writes a book based on his considered assessment of years of therapy with patients, encountering different problems and trying different things, does that count as a study of applied psychology?

An answer to your first question: you can find volumes of studies in the professional academic psychology journals that have examined many psychological techniques. Admittedly, this is time-consuming and tedious work. One of the criticisms of Freudian psychoanalysis is that it's claims (particularly, its theories) are, for the most part, unverifiable. When studies have been made attempting to test the efficacy of its therapeutic techniques, the results did not show that psychoanalytical techniques were as useful as many other therapies (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapies).

Your second question: does a book written by a psychologist giving his conclusions after years of practicing therapy, count as "applied psychology?" If you mean, as "proof" that his conclusions are correct, hell no! At last count there are over 300 (or is it 500?) schools or "systems" of therapy. Many of these conflict (understatement!) with one another. They are all have books backing their theories - so which theory is right? And without empirical evidence for support, how would you know?

I'm sure that Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Rollo May, Erich Fromm, Albert Ellis, Nathaniel Branden, (fill-in the psychologist of your choice), thought that they had written great books "proving" their views on human nature. I'm equally sure that many of them were surprised that their peers did not come around to their thinking. They all had included "case studies" (if you will, "testimonials") of their clients to back-up their views.

So, in answer to your question, the best that that kind of book can do is provide some provocative ideas that will need further investigation in order to establish their validity.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure that Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Rollo May, Erich Fromm, Albert Ellis, Nathaniel Branden, (fill-in the psychologist of your choice), thought that they had written great books "proving" their views on human nature. I'm equally sure that many of them were surprised that their peers did not come around to their thinking. They all had included "case studies" (if you will, "testimonials") of their clients to back-up their views.

This is a misrepresentation of Nathaniel Branden. I have no real idea about those other fellows. If he has offered any proof it was only from deductive reasoning and anybody can do that. Positing how people are and should be and all of the imagined that sort of thing isn't claiming proof. It might be wrong and it might be arrogance, but it's not proof. Proof and empiricism don't mix. Adducing evidence is not proof. A theory cannot be proven, only demonstrated to be true until contradicted. Then it is modified or simply discarded.

--Brant