Thanks--and some thoughts on scientifically expressed resistance to EMDR

• sex addiction by cf, 12/31/98
  • (...)
    
    • Correction of error by Uri Bergmann, LCSW, BCD, 1/14/99
      
      

Thanks for your concern--but I suspect the only errors I (and most of the rest of us) were in any danger from were the ones that come from my own lack of background in this area! Your review was very helpful, and promises many hours of reading ahead. The clinical aspects of EMDR are my primary interest, but exploring the psycho-physiological interactions is a wonder and amazement to me as well, perhaps something on the order of what the first explorers felt when they came to the new world. However, I also hope this research will address what I believe to be the major resistance to EMDR; that is, the lack of commonly shared theories which would explain the clinical effect, rather than any lack of demonstrated clinical effectiveness. The best expression of that resistance that I have seen is from a review by Hudson, Chase and Pope (International Journal of Eating Disorders, 1998). They dismiss any effectiveness of EMDR, ostensibly on 'methodological' grounds, but then state what I believe to be the real problem--"We were also unable to find a sound theoretical basis for expecting EMDR to be effective." The authors then go on to discuss their concerns that EMDR will cause negative effects--an odd concern if they have no reason to believe it will be effective in the first place! Refusing to accept demonstrated effects simply because we don't know what is causing them is not a very effective way to get on in science. However, that does seem to be the source of many objections to EMDR. I have great hopes that the kinds of research we've been discussing here will open the door to excitement over new levels of understanding, rather than refusal to go down new paths. Please do keep letting us know about new research. (PS--I wish there was a spell check on this thing...)

No Replies