Re:associations?

Thank you for your clarification.

I do understand your point about controlled observations/science. However, I don't see anything wrong with "misdirected" statements if, as I pointed out, I was NOT elevating my perceptions to the level of "fact". I was simply inquiring as to other's clinical experience.

There are large numbers of clinicians using emdr without eye movements, which, as I understand it, means ALL their clinical experience is invalidated, from a protocol/research standpoint. However, any experience with a client can be of interest to other therapists, although imagination and bias and supposition will, of course, get mixed in.

I think there is room for, and use for, both sorts of discussions. I think it is possible for intelligent people to engage in hypothetical, imaginative discussion while still acknowledging what has and has not yet been proved by research.

I think emdr makes for great therapy. I have no idea which components work or don't work and I know the research is inconclusive. I understand that the components that DO work may be the same as with other exposure therapies. I, like most people, don't have experience with or knowledge of other such therapies. EMDR has the spotlight and it is what people are learning and using.

Replies:

Re:associations?, by Cahill, 11/03/02 Re:associations?, by , 11/03/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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