EMDR Forum Archive, 1999
Re: Lying--An common EMDR problem?
Brian G · 4/29/00 at 5:32 pm ET
I find most of your rebuttals largely appeals to authority arguments which have already been commented on by myself and others. Furthermore, van der Kolk is a controversial figure in his own right. I will refer you to a recent editorial written in the Detroit News. (I'm sure you will disagree but it's an interesting take on the matter.) http://www.detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0001/07/2oped/2oped.htm Nevertheless, the substance of the information you present hinges on a common misconception by many in the field who don't really understand how to interpret brain imaging evidence. They continue to be WOWED! by things like brain imaging studies and ANS activity changes. I don't think I should have to explain this, because it is so obvious, but here goes anyway. Showing that there are physiological changes following therapy provides ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of the theory that proper information processing is blocked. How you think it does I haven't a clue. The brain responds to external stimuli and when they change, so does brain activity. I have already asserted, and studies have demonstrated, that EMDR contains elements of other therapies that have been shown to be effective, which I believe account for much of the benefit. In addition, Francine has admitted that the efficacy of eye movements is, in her words, indeterminable at this point according to the studies. This is just an example to illustrate the point: Say I give someone a sugar pill for their reported dysphoric mood and the person happens to feel much more content later. Say I measure brain activity before and after the "treatment" and find that there is a change. I guess this means that sugar cures negative mood? You can see my point. Let us also not forget the most important flaw, this one methodological and not conceptual, being that van der Kolk did not compare these individuals against a comparable control sample. Therefore, it is complete speculation as to what was producing a change. I really don't understand your concluding points about my absolute denial of trauma. What I am simply saying is: don't go trying to find something that isn't there because it can lead you into trouble. Every problem of humankind is not due to some ill-defined trauma experience and therefore applying a trauma based treatment (like EMDR, one that theoretically works based on allowing the person to "process" the content of negative memories and which requres finding negative memories to perform the therapy) to every problem imaginable would seem contraindicated. I would think that this is a fairly logical conclusion. By the way, there is a general consensus by most of the respected researchers and clinicians in this field that EMDR is not what it claims to be (my own appeal to authority argument here, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em ; - ). This point can be lost if one insulates themselves by only reading this BB. I could give you a long string of opponents of EMDR in the field, as you continue to do to support your arguments, but of course this fails to really address the issues. respectfully, brain
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
