On Distortions, Biases & Many Voices

Like you, I believe that scientific discussion indeed hinges on open-minded examination of facts, and tooth grinding chewing on points of dispute. I have no problem whatsoever with that.

My only problem is similar to Brian's gripe, ironically, which is that established biases cloud that truth-seeking vision with muddy filters.

I can tell when people use emotional words that they are engaging in some conflict other than the one at hand. Some people's criticisms are so predictably negative that I fear the noble goal of truth seeking is lost. I suspect this is what some critics also think about EMDR practitioners perception, that is, that it is clouded by biases.

I take this problem (which is a scientific one as well as an epistemological one - namely What is Real?) very seriously. I don't want to ever forget that there are many sources of bias and distortion in perception, in decision making, in categorization, in memory, --- in any human cognitive process.

So what to do with the daily miracles I see for the applications of EMDR beyond the PTSD conditions for which research has confirmed its use? I haven't seen many problems of it failing to work - most of the problems are of therapists failing to use the right approach. This month I've used EMDR successfully to resolve panic disorder, driving phobia, a reactive depression, and some thorny personality-disorder type overvalued ideas.

Single subject data is valuable data, as any cognitive-behaviorist knows. EMDR practitioners have a lot of single subject material under our belts. Yes there are plenty of opportunities for self-deception, inadvertent distortion, and so on. But are we not under some obligation, whether scientific or sacred, to work some minor miracles when we have the opportunity? Must we be paralyzed by the epistemological and scientific conundrums of knowing what is true and real?

I still say that when I see a gorilla fall out of a tree, I don't need to measure it with a micrometer to know something important has happened.

Finally, if I haven't made it clear, I think that the role of skeptics and negative questions in this forum is important, maybe even though they may be biased by a negative filter. It keeps the discussion on its toes and enables one to never forget the hazards of perception, distortion,etc. It is easier to appreciate the value of those negative voices when they are respectful and just as vigilant to and cognizant of the potentiality of bias in their own eyes.

This is a much better list for having a skeptical cast in it, than merely a rosy pollyana hue.

Warm Regards, --Sandra

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.