EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:Scientific Jargon vs. reality
McFall · 12/25/02 at 7:52 PM ET
Sandra: Wasn’t recommending a medication, but I see how it could be construed that way. Hope it’s OK to discuss neurochemicals here; chemical intervention has been essential in my own recovery, and there seems to be lots of evidence that when psychotherapy is successful, it actually alters neurochemistry (“naturally” (whatever that means) as opposed to a chemical supplementation). And the reality is that millions of people use chemical interventions all the time with things like caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, sugar, etc. All the research I’ve seen indicates that when EMDR is effective, it’s effective only for the same reasons CBT type therapies are effective, and that there is no evidence that EMDR’s major distinction, the “bilateral stimulation” aspects, add anything to EMDR’s efficacy. On the other hand, I’ll admit that sitting between my stereo speakers with a good “house music” CD playing has helped me, on occasion, manage and think thru certain emotional turmoil and/or issues. But, based on my understanding of the biology of emotion and the most current neuroscience research, I think that such an intervention more likely enhances “focus” (dopamine enhancement and prefrontal cortical stimulation?) enabling a better understanding of, and a downward/cognitive management of, emotion (emotion is always triggered in, and emanates from, the dominant, faster, and more primitive subcortical neurosystems). BTW, it’s your call of course, but please don’t feel impelled to remove “personal attacks” against me--I rarely if ever am offended by such, sometimes gaining insights I wouldn’t normally gain from a less emotional response.
Replies:
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
