=^..^= Are REGRESSIVE and/or ABREACTIVE THERAPIES Sacred Cows? =^..^=

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on October 11, 2009 at 10:57pm

Hi Joe,

I think you might have misintereprested Michaels meaning.

the way I see it, he pretty much agrees with everything you have jsut said.

and I take it he is implying that many of the Suggestions, are within the ritual.

I hope I've got that right.

LOve and hugs,

Fable

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Joubarne on October 13, 2009 at 8:04am

Nicely expressed Sheila.

I find the ‘techniques’ discussion fascinating. However, I work hard to ensure that ‘techniques’ do not encroach on the process of self-healing in my practice. The inner knower of every individual has its own techniques and I guess you might say it is a technique in just letting the ‘knower’ handle things.

It seems to me that sometimes we tend to get so fixated on ‘techniques’ that we may be in danger of forgetting that we have nothing to do with the self-healing of a client other then being a safe and secure place for them to heal themselves. I’ve never believed for one minute that my ‘techniques’ have anything to do with a client resolving their issues. All I’ve done is provide the love, support, compassion and safe place for them to get their work done. I know in my heart that once I start entertaining the idea that my ‘technique’ healed so and so, my ego has won.

I feel that the moment we elevate something to the status of 'sacred cow' we are automatically giving the technique energy that we may unwittingly and unintentionally impose in our sessions for various reasons. We might either consciously avoid using regression/abreactive techniques to emulate some experts who may or may no longer use the technique… or we might, just because we want to use sacred cows...in other words, lots of our ego could become involved.

By giving the technique no more thought energy then any other, we are more likely not to form any strong beliefs around it and therefore be more inclined to let the client choose his medicine. If we enter a self-healing session with pre-conceived notions of what techniques we should use and what the experts say … in my humble opinion, the session has already moved from being self-healing to therapist-centered.

I try to take my beliefs around techniques completely out of the picture by explaining to the client that now they are in a safe and secure place and he/she gets to self-heal in whatever way their inner knower knows best. I don't lead them into regression, or anywhere for that matter, but I am there to guide them where ever they want to go to get resolution. If there is indication they want to deal with the ‘why’ of their belief, they are encouraged to go there…sometimes they take me there with them by providing details, other times it’s a quiet resolution with or without obvious abreaction. If they express their issue in hypnosis in a way that suggests various ‘parts’ are involved, I ask them if they would like to consult with the various parts of themselves to get this sorted out. I then ask them to go ahead and do that to suit themselves by remaining connected to, and guided by, their inner knower. I remind them they can consult with me if they run into any road-blocks or have any questions.

I have personally found that analytical people tend to want to know the ‘why’ and ‘how’ and like methods of resolution they are familiar with in their daily lives…such as a meeting of all the parts and analysis of the issue (regression to ISE). But I don’t lead them there; I ask them to follow their inner knower to the place within them that has everything to do with the issue(s) they are struggling with and the answers they need to fix the problem. I remind them I’m there to help if they need me. Often they spontaneously end up at the ISE, abreact and within a very short time they are also telling me what they need to heal their lives.

This method of approaching self-healing works very well with my clients who have language challenges (Vietnamese (Kumar Rouge issues), Somalians (civil war issues) etc). For example, as long as a person can speak English well enough to understand the bare-bones of my guidance to allow themselves to go with their inner-knower to the place of resolution, I find they resolve everything very well in their own language during the session.

I make every effort to impress on the client the fact that they self-healed and I had little to do with it. Particularly with my serial infidelity clients, the fact that they healed themselves is hugely empowering as it re-enforces for them that they are indeed resourceful and resilient and can do whatever needs to get done to change their lives for the better….and they’ve just proven this through the self-healing in session.



Regards to all,
Grace













Sheila M. Street, CH CI T.NLP said:

Personally, I tend to take the middle road on this one. To me, each client coming to see me is unique, and their problems, habits, and response to the work are also unique.

As to regression work being "voyeuristic": I think we need to have a fairly good idea at times as to what occurred with the client, to be better informed of their particular situation and desire for change. Knowing how to separate oneself from what is happening with the client is also part of knowing how to do a particular therapy (in this case regression) properly, so that we don't lose sight of our part in this process. That doesn't, then, mean that the the regression therapy part is useless - it just means we need to keep ourselves, personally, out of the solution. For some empathic individuals this may prove more difficult - so a clear sense of "us" and "them" needs to be established for the hypnotist to do this effectively.

I don't, however, agree with the regression school of thought that ALL regressions need to start with abreaction. For some situations, it may be more effective, but I think as professionals we need to keep in mind that we are there to help, not re-wound, our clients. There are other just as effective methods of regression (the calendar method, for one) that can assist in finding an ISE, that doesn't pull a negative charge back into the aura of the client. I have found that clients can still go back to where things started with other kinds of direction, and re-living (revivification of) the event doesn't always provide re-learning to the extent that just observing the event from a safe location can provide. If a client slips from the observing level into the revivified level themselves as the regression progresses, I do take that as a sign that the informed Soul of the client has a reason for allowing that to happen - and I work with whatever arises at that time, to achieve the relief and lessons needed for the client.

On the other hand, I also agree that not all client situations require regression, and aggressive direct-suggestion and metaphor based work can achieve great results.

I think, too, it depends on the type of practice that a hypnotist wants for themselves, their working style, etc. If you are the type that has a very filled practice, with hourly apointments scheduled back-to-back, then regression work, coupled with the other parts that go with it (forgiveness, parts therapy, etc.) does tend to take longer, and may not fit with your vision of how you want to conduct business. For good regression work, sufficient trance levels to do the work need to be established, which generally takes a while longer, even using rapid induction methods to initially establish trance, so a full regression probably doesn't fit well into an hour-long time slot. Also, it does take more of an energy effort on the part of the hypnotist to do this kind of work, so it's definitely not for those who only want to follow a set script and practice assembly-line style hypnosis.

I have to disagree strongly with Michaels "suggestion" that these "therapies are powered by a combination of implied suggestions, direct suggestions, indirect suggestions and unintended suggestions just like every other hypnotic process!" Regression therapy is investigative - and anyone properly trained in regression techniques knows that it is improper to "suggest", directly or implied, anything to the client about what they are viewing or experiencing. It is properly left for the "adult" part of the client to make their own assumptions as to the best course of learning to be achieved from any material gleaned in the regression process. Once regression has been completed, and hearing from the emerged adult as to what they want to change with their NEW learning is established, THEN appropriate suggestions can be provided.

In order to change beliefs, sometimes it is necessary for the client to understand (by regression) how they acquired those beliefs. Otherwise you may have "temporarily" fixed the problem - dressing the wound without properly cleaning it - or worse - providing suggestions for something the client doesn't want and won't act upon anyways - and I guess it would be good for some, from a business standpoint, to do this. On the whole I think doing the BEST we can by our clients in all circumstances is fitting the work to their unique needs, and if that doesn't fit into YOUR beliefs/structure of your sessions, then do the right thing by your client and refer them to someone else who will take the time to address the problem thoroughly and without delay of cookie-cutter, beat the clock strategies.

Bottom-line - I don't see regression to cause as a Sacred Cow. It is simply another tool to use - and using it a skill well worth learning and using in daily practice if it fits your "model" for your practice.

Respectfully,
Sheila

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete & Lorraine on October 14, 2009 at 11:30am

Hi
When working with a client we use the IMR to ask whether it's a habit or a skill, we then ask if we need to go back to where it started or any are there any events we need to look at to let go of ??????. More often than not the subconscious wants to regress to the initial event, which is not always Abreactive. We go back to the event(s) and deal with what comes up, doing the healing as we go using Inner Child, higher self, Gestalt work, NLP, whatever is appropriate, having done the work we check using the IMR if that was all we needed to look at and whether the subconscious will now let the behaviour go. Rounded off with direct suggestion reinforcing the work. The following sessions will be confidence building, take something out put something back in. We have had people come to us after years of CBT, counselling, or having had direct suggestion, We let the subconscious lead the way.
Kind Regards
Pete

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on October 31, 2009 at 6:38pm

Hi Folks -


I'm back.

Let me start by thanking all of you for your respectful replies --

Hey - Fable

I appreciate your confidence in my ability to back up my posts as well as your understanding of what I was and was not saying. You were on target with every post... Thank you


Hello Gil,

I wrote:
Most licensed health care professionals stopped using Regressive and Abreactive therapies 20 years ago...

You wrote:
Michael said---Most licensed health care professionals stopped using Regressive and Abreactive therapies 20 years ago.
My reply----What are your sources for this overly broad statement?


My reply is that it has been more than 20 years since psychiatry basically abandoned talk therapy in favor of pharma-medicine and the small percentage of psychiatrists who still practiced talk therapy favored CBT as have most psychologists and social workers.

My sources are:

1) "Primary care mental health workers: models of working and evidence of effectiveness" which concluded that CBT is the psychotherapy of choice.
The British Journal of General Practice: Volume 52, Number 484, November 2002 , pp. 926-933(8)

2) National Survey of Psychotherapy Training in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work, Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:925-934.
"Results: Cognitive behavioral therapy was the EBT most frequently offered and required as a didactic in all 3 disciplines. More than 90% of the psychiatry training programs were complying with the new cognitive behavior therapy requirement."


I trust that answers your question.

Respectuflly,

Michael E.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on October 31, 2009 at 8:23pm

Hi Adrain,

Your opinion does not in any way, shape or form demonstrate that there is more than suggstion at work in any of the modalities you mention because just going through any of these processes is a SUGGESTION that doing so will resolve the issue-- whether or not you wish to go there, my friend.

Changing ones mind automatically changes the brain which changes physiology and behaviors -- Suggestion directly effects neurology --

Warmest regards,



Adrian Tannock said:

Hiya Michael,
I think you are wrong in your assertion; the theory of hypnotic regression (regress to ISE etc, etc)** does match up to modern theories of brain function referencing the behaviour of the amygdala's implication in 'emotional hijacking':
- Some consider emotional material to be encoded into memory via the function, in part, of the amygdala.

- The limbic system part of the brain (so, not the metaphor of the unconscious mind) has been demonstrated to refer to these past, emotional experience (memories) in order to produce certain behaviours. This has been referred to as "emotional hijacking" (Wolinsky) and is implicated in most things we work with, from simple phobias, to habit disorders, to matters of emotioal belief and perception, through to complex depression, eating disorders, etc, etc... (Joseph LeDoux)...

- Removing the emotional affect from those memories that a person believes to be the problem, be it via hypnotic regression, visual kinesthetic dissociation, EMDR, EFT or whatever, has an effect on a person's presenting issue that I suggest is beyond suggestion; to me - these therapeutic interventions are making changes on a neurological level, regardless of any hypnotic suggestion* offered...

For example with EMDR on old memories, keeping it content free & using minimal language, people change. The theoretical basis for this is no different to the theoretical basis for associated regression in my view.

* (I appreciate that guiding them through the process is in itself a suggestion, but lets not get into that).
** (Also, I am not a regressionist, probably more of a reductionist!)

To me the perceived wisdom as to why hypnotic regression (or EMDR, v-k dissociation, etc) works is consistent with the latest thinking in brain function and goes beyond suggestion, or the metaphor of "unconscious mind" (A Sacred Cow discussion I started personally some time ago!)

Thanks,

Adrian

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Hazlerig on October 31, 2009 at 9:25pm

Sheila,

I find it ironic when you say that RTC is not for those who want a cookie-cutter approach. The sacred cow that we're addressing here is the tendency for regressionist to apply RTC and only RTC to every problem. That sounds like a cookie-cutter approach to me. (Banyan has stated publically that he modeled his business on McDonald's; every client gets the same RTC product.)

Personally, my only beef with the regressionists is that tendency to believe that theirs is the only way. Like most posters here, I agree that RTC is one more tool for the box.

James

Sheila M. Street, CH CI T.NLP said:

Personally, I tend to take the middle road on this one. To me, each client coming to see me is unique, and their problems, habits, and response to the work are also unique.

As to regression work being "voyeuristic": I think we need to have a fairly good idea at times as to what occurred with the client, to be better informed of their particular situation and desire for change. Knowing how to separate oneself from what is happening with the client is also part of knowing how to do a particular therapy (in this case regression) properly, so that we don't lose sight of our part in this process. That doesn't, then, mean that the the regression therapy part is useless - it just means we need to keep ourselves, personally, out of the solution. For some empathic individuals this may prove more difficult - so a clear sense of "us" and "them" needs to be established for the hypnotist to do this effectively.

I don't, however, agree with the regression school of thought that ALL regressions need to start with abreaction. For some situations, it may be more effective, but I think as professionals we need to keep in mind that we are there to help, not re-wound, our clients. There are other just as effective methods of regression (the calendar method, for one) that can assist in finding an ISE, that doesn't pull a negative charge back into the aura of the client. I have found that clients can still go back to where things started with other kinds of direction, and re-living (revivification of) the event doesn't always provide re-learning to the extent that just observing the event from a safe location can provide. If a client slips from the observing level into the revivified level themselves as the regression progresses, I do take that as a sign that the informed Soul of the client has a reason for allowing that to happen - and I work with whatever arises at that time, to achieve the relief and lessons needed for the client.

On the other hand, I also agree that not all client situations require regression, and aggressive direct-suggestion and metaphor based work can achieve great results.

I think, too, it depends on the type of practice that a hypnotist wants for themselves, their working style, etc. If you are the type that has a very filled practice, with hourly apointments scheduled back-to-back, then regression work, coupled with the other parts that go with it (forgiveness, parts therapy, etc.) does tend to take longer, and may not fit with your vision of how you want to conduct business. For good regression work, sufficient trance levels to do the work need to be established, which generally takes a while longer, even using rapid induction methods to initially establish trance, so a full regression probably doesn't fit well into an hour-long time slot. Also, it does take more of an energy effort on the part of the hypnotist to do this kind of work, so it's definitely not for those who only want to follow a set script and practice assembly-line style hypnosis.

I have to disagree strongly with Michaels "suggestion" that these "therapies are powered by a combination of implied suggestions, direct suggestions, indirect suggestions and unintended suggestions just like every other hypnotic process!" Regression therapy is investigative - and anyone properly trained in regression techniques knows that it is improper to "suggest", directly or implied, anything to the client about what they are viewing or experiencing. It is properly left for the "adult" part of the client to make their own assumptions as to the best course of learning to be achieved from any material gleaned in the regression process. Once regression has been completed, and hearing from the emerged adult as to what they want to change with their NEW learning is established, THEN appropriate suggestions can be provided.

In order to change beliefs, sometimes it is necessary for the client to understand (by regression) how they acquired those beliefs. Otherwise you may have "temporarily" fixed the problem - dressing the wound without properly cleaning it - or worse - providing suggestions for something the client doesn't want and won't act upon anyways - and I guess it would be good for some, from a business standpoint, to do this. On the whole I think doing the BEST we can by our clients in all circumstances is fitting the work to their unique needs, and if that doesn't fit into YOUR beliefs/structure of your sessions, then do the right thing by your client and refer them to someone else who will take the time to address the problem thoroughly and without delay of cookie-cutter, beat the clock strategies.

Bottom-line - I don't see regression to cause as a Sacred Cow. It is simply another tool to use - and using it a skill well worth learning and using in daily practice if it fits your "model" for your practice.

Respectfully,
Sheila

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 1, 2009 at 4:24am

Let us rememer that the effectiveness of a technique or modality does NOT validate the theory of how or why it works-

In my opinion - EMDR is a persausive healing modality and is powered by unacknowledged and unrecognized suggestion.

The paper below may be of interest -- Adrain.

May 2002
Counterpoint
242
The Psychologist Vol 15 No 5
Emperor’s new clothes?

STEPHEN JOSEPH asks whether EMDR is a pseudoscientific repackaging of existing
psychotherapeutic factors dressed up in the emperor’s new clothes of eye movements.
‘In the blink of an eye’ (March)

IN the March issue of The Psychologist, Shapiro and Maxfield say that EMDR is an effective treatment for post-
traumatic stress disorder. They point toward reviews by the International Society
for Traumatic Stress Studies (Chemtob et al., 2000) and the American Psychological
Association (Chambless et al., 1998). What is less evident from Shapiro and Maxfield’s
article is that the conclusions of these reviews were based on evidence that EMDR is probably more effective than no
treatment at all. As McNally (1999a) notes, a similar conclusion might have been reached in the 18th century for the efficacy of Mesmer’s animal magnetism therapy! It too was probably more effective than no therapy at all. However, scientists at the time concluded that any effect of Mesmer’s therapy was probably due to the power of
suggestion, thereby discrediting mesmerism. In contrast to this, the American Psychological Association committee set up to look at the empirical validation of treatments ‘recently startled many psychologists by proclaiming EMDR
as “probably efficacious for civilian PTSD”’(McNally, 1999a, p.235).

Eye movements are unnecessary

The fact that EMDR is an effective treatment does not imply support for the role of eye movements, hand-taps, or
audiotones. It is a fallacy to assume that just because a treatment works this tells us about how the treatment works. Shapiro and Maxfield are of course aware of this and in their article they say that the active ingredients, as they call them, are far from settled upon. But it is the eye movements that were the novel ingredient in EMDR and that give it its name. What is the evidence that eye movements are of any importance at all? McNally (1999b) writes:
…the novel component of EMDR (eye movements) adds nothing to the traditional imaginal exposure component… Therefore, what is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective. (p.619) More recently, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologyhas published a meta-analysis review of the EMDR
literature (Davidson & Parker, 2001). Following computerised literature searches for studies published between 1988 and
2000 examining the effects of EMDR, Davidson and Parker selected 34 group comparison studies that had been carried
out into the effectiveness of EMDR. Unlike more traditional literature reviews, meta- analysis is a statistical technique that allows the researcher to aggregate the different results of lots of studies and reach an overall conclusion. What Davidson and Parker (2001) concluded was this: In sum, EMDR appears to be no more effective than other exposure
techniques, and evidence suggests that the eye movements integral to the treatment, and to its name, are unnecessary. (p.305)
Presumably Shapiro and Maxfield were not aware of Davidson and Parker’s article at the time of writing theirs. The evidence just does not support the claim that EMDR is an important new therapeutic discovery.
Most importantly, the evidence does not show eye movements to be an active ingredient. Rather, the evidence points
toward EMDR being nothing more than a repackaging of existing therapeutic techniques. Hyer and Brandsma (1997)
discuss how EMDR is successful simply because it applies common and generally
accepted principles of psychotherapy. For example, they argue that EMDR is based on the idea dating back to Carl Rogers that the client will move towards positive growth given the right environment. They
also argue that EMDR respects the position of the client with the application of a
method that is non-directive over content and therefore empowering to the client.

counter point
Andrade,J.,Kavanagh,D.& Baddeley,A.
(1997).Eye-movements and visual
imagery:A working memory approach
to the treatment of post-traumatic
stress disorder.British Journal of Clinical
Psychology,36,209–223.
Chambless,D.L.,Baker,M.J.,Baucom,D.H.,
Beutler,L.E.,Calhoun,K.S.,Crits-
Christoph,P.et al. (1998).Update on
empirically validated therapies.The
Clinical Psychologist,51,3–16.
Chemtob,C.M.,Tolin,D.F.,van der Kolk,
B.A.& Pitman,R.K.(2000).Eye
movement desensitization and
reprocessing.In E.B.Foa.,T.M.,Keane &
M.J.Friedman (Eds.) Effective treatments
for PTSD:Practice guidelines from the
International Society for Traumatic Stress
Studies(pp.139–155,333–335).New
York:Guilford Press.
Corrigan,P.W.(2001).Getting ahead of the
data:A threat to some behavior
therapies.The Behavior Therapist,24,
189–193.
Davidson,P.R.& Parker,K.C.H.(2001).Eye
movement desensitization and
reprocessing (EMDR):A meta-analysis.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology,69,305–316.
Garfield,S.L.(1996).Some problems
associated with ‘validated’ forms of
psychotherapy.Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice,3,218–229.
Herbert,J.D.,Lilienfield,S.O.,Lohr,J.M.,
Montgomery,R.W.,O’Donohue,W.T.,
Rosen,G.M.et al.(2000).Science and
pseudoscience in the development of
EMDR.Clinical Psychology Review,20,
945–971.
Hyer,L.A.& Brandsma,J.M.(1997).EMDR
minus eye movements equals good
psychotherapy.Journal of Traumatic
Stress,10,515–522.
McNally,R.(1999a).EMDR and mesmerism:
A comparative historical analysis.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders,13,225–236.
McNally,R.(1999b).On eye movements
and animal magnetism:A reply to
Greenwald’sdefense of EMDR.Journal
of Anxiety Disorders,13,617–620.
Sagan,C.(1996).The demon-haunted world:
Science as a candle in the dark.New
York:Ballantine Books.
Senior,J.(2001).Eye movement
desensitisation and reprocessing:A
matter for serious consideration.The
Psychologist,14,361–363.
van den Hout,M.,Muris,P.,Salemink,E.&
Kindt,M.(2001).Autobiographical
memories become less vivid and
emotional after eye movements.British
Journal of Clinical Psychology,40,
121–130.
References
May 2002
243
The Psychologist Vol 15 No 5
EMDR as pseudoscience
Other critics, Herbert et al. (2000) for
example, have claimed that EMDR has
many of the characteristics of
‘pseudoscience’. They argue (see
www.pseudoscience.org) that EMDR is
pseudoscientific because although it has
been presented by its proponents using the
language of science, the rigours of scientific
investigation have not been followed.
Whereas the scientific approach is to
proceed cautiously, first building up the
evidence base before introducing a new
therapy, a pseudoscience claims to do this
but in reality introduces the therapy without
the evidence. The fact that over 25,000
therapists have trained in EMDR when the
best evidence now suggests that EMDR is
no more effective than other exposure
techniques, and that the eye movements are
unnecessary, certainly suggests that the
therapy has come before the data. Put it
this way:given the results of Davidson and
Parker’s meta-analysis, if EMDR did not
already exist, there would now be no reason
to invent it.
But not only has EMDR already been
invented, it has been accompanied by
complex theoretical speculations on
accelerated information processing
mechanisms and on how eye movements
might affect the central nervous system.
A key tool in Carl Sagan’s (1996) ‘baloney
detection kit’is Occam’s Razor. Simply put,
Occam’s Razor is a convenient rule of
thumb that says that when we are faced
with two explanations that explain the data
equally well, we should choose the simpler
of the two. If EMDR is effective, but it is
no more effective than exposure, and it
actually involves exposure, Occam’s Razor
tells us that EMDR is probably exposure.
There is no compelling scientific reason
to invoke more complex theoretical
frameworks. As noted above, the
scientific approach would be to gather
the evidence first.
However, studies into the role of eye
movements have only appeared in the last
few years (e.g. Andrade et al., 1997; van
den Hout et al., 2001). The results of these
studies suggest that there might be some
therapeutic value in eye movements, and
it might well turn out yet that Shapiro has
indeed stumbled upon one of most
important therapeutic discoveries of all
time. But at the moment we simply don’t
know enough to warrant the existence of a
fully developed therapeutic approach based
on eye movements or any of the other dual-
attention tasks. Shapiro’s approach, even if
pseudoscientific, might turn out to be a
catalyst for the experimental work into eye
movements that will in the end lead to the
development of important new therapeutic
techniques. But equally plausible is that
EMDR will prove to have been a
distraction from a more worthwhile
research agenda and in time we will look
back and view EMDR in the same way that
we now view phrenology and mesmerism.
EMDR stands out because of its
seemingly bizarre protocol. But much of
what has been said about EMDR might
apply more widely. Other recently
introduced therapies like dialectical
behaviour therapy, functional analytic
psychotherapy, and acceptance and
commitment therapy, can also be accused
of ‘getting ahead of the data’(Corrigan,
2001). Indeed, Garfield (1996) argues that
many of the current recommendations for
effective therapies are premature. The story
of EMDR raises questions about what
ought to constitute evidence for the
recommendation of a psychological
treatment.
Senior (2001) reminds us that the
importance of the EMDR debate is because
of the duty of care we owe to our clients.
She quotes Rosen as saying:
Clinicians may find themselves in front
of reasonable fellow citizens, having to
explain why they waved fingers in front
of a patient’s face, when studies failed
to support the miraculous claims made
in the late 1980s by the founder of
EMDR. (p.363)
Given the statements from the various
professional bodies that EMDR is probably
efficacious, and simply recognising the
difficult day-to-day clinical reality of
working with clients who are extremely
distressed, it is not surprising that many
individual clinicians have adopted EMDR
into their ways of working. Many clinicians
say that they have found EMDR very useful
and that it has helped them to work with
clients who they would otherwise have
found difficult to engage. There is perhaps
something interesting in the mix of how the
EMDR therapist is non-directive over
content and trusting in the positive
growth processes of the client, while
simultaneously engaging the client in
imaginal exposure. Nevertheless, the
adoption of EMDR so readily without
the appropriate evidence does not do any
favours to the reputation of those whose
status is supposedly based on the idea of
scientific progress and evidence-based
practice.
■Stephen Joseph has trained in EMDR
therapy and is a senior lecturer in health
psychology at the Department of
Psychology, University of Warwick.
E-mail:s.joseph@warwick.ac.uk.
This is the first of our ‘Counterpoint’
articles.If you read an article in The
Psychologistthat you fundamentally disagree
with,then the letters page remains your first
port of call:summarise your argument in
under 500 words.But if you feel you have a
substantial amount of conflicting evidence to
cite or numerous points to make that simply
cannot be contained within a letter,you can
now submit an article of up to 1500 words –
but we need to receive it within a month of
the publication of the original article.We
hope this new format will build on the role
of The Psychologistas a forum for discussion
and debate.
‘If EMDR did not already
exist,there would now be
no reason to invent it’

=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
----


Adrian Tannock said:

Michael Ellner said:

Hi Adrain,
Your opinion does not in any way, shape or form demonstrate that there is more than suggstion at work in any of the modalities you mention because just going through any of these processes is a SUGGESTION that doing so will resolve the issue-- whether or not you wish to go there, my friend. Changing ones mind automatically changes the brain which changes physiology and behaviors -- Suggestion directly effects neurology -- Warmest regards,

Hiya Michael,

Thank you for the reply. You're right of course in that embarking on the therapeutic processes is a type of suggestion. However:

1. Your assertion is "In my opinion, "Regressive" therapies are powered by a combination of implied suggestions, direct suggestions, indirect suggestions and unintended suggestions just like every other hypnotic process!" (Emphasis mine).

2. That's not a type of a suggestion, it's 4 different types of suggestion.

3. From your opinion then, you would surely have to predict the outcome of an EMDR session carried out without talking and 'content-free' as being likely to fail, because the therapy is underpowered (by your criteria) in that direct suggestion, indirect suggestion and unintended suggestions are not present (only implied suggestion is present).

However, we know that EMDR is often successful in these conditions. I think your opinion is at this point shaky.

4. Im not discounting that suggestion of change isn't a factor in therapy... However, my opinion is that some regressional approaches engage emotional matters neuro-chemically in ways non-regressional approaches do not. This is based on a percieved consistency with current research into how the brain handles emotion, rather than hypno-dogma (I hate hypno-dogma).

My opinion does predict EMDR being successful content-free (which as we know, still doesn't elivate it from the position of being an opinion, please don't think I am suggesting that!) ;-)

Warm regards to you too, my friend.

Adrian

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 1, 2009 at 5:13am

Right on -- Adrian,

My mis-spelling of your name was a typo --Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt--

I don't claim to have all of the answers myself -- I posted this discussion -- because I was fed up by hypnosis trainers/practitioners who teach or claim that all forms of hypno-helping that do not include RTC are giving their clients band aids instead of long term benefits.

Thanks for the respectful exchange-

Michael E.



Adrian Tannock said:

HI Michael,
Thanks for the paper; in fact I've encountered it before (although I appreciate you posting it) and it is incorporated into my understanding of matters, in that my final answer to all discussions such as these, beyond the enjoyment of a good debate, is "maybe"... (I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do enjoy talking things out!)

So... I enjoyed our debate... cheers.

PS: Given that you are a hypnotist, and so I'd expect your use of ambiguity to be quite sharp, I'll try and consider "Adrain" to be a typo, rather than some kind of judgement on our interactions! ;-)

Warm regards,

Adrian

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis on November 1, 2009 at 6:15am

Michael,

Interesting discussion.

You wrote:
"The world has changed dramatically in the last 50 years and the regressionists seem unaware that all of the regressive-abreactive approaches to healing are based on Freud's theories and psychotherapeutic practices. Most licensed health care professionals stopped using Regressive and Abreactive therapies 20 years ago... Modern day Cognitive and Behavioral Therapists focus on developing their patient's coping skills and abilities and changing their beliefs.

1. Should I take from this that you believe that we as hypnotists should follow the lead of "licensed health care professionals" in the approach we take with our clients?

2. Do you believe there is any distinction between the practice of regression and its effectiveness in and out of the context of hypnosis?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 1, 2009 at 6:38am

Great questions John,

1) My comment about major changes in therapuetic thinking was meant to point out that there has been a paradigm shift that some hypnosis trainers and their students don't seem to be aware of...This shift is reflected in popular culture and I believe that we should use this awareness inform rather dictate how we practice hypnosis.

I believe that all of us empower the techniques that we use and I started this discussion because I wanted to respectfully challenge those who repeatedly claim that RTC is the only way to achieve long-term benefits...

2) I believe that all regression involves some level of entrancement - The trance is the process...

Best,
me


John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis said:

Michael,

Interesting discussion.

You wrote:
"The world has changed dramatically in the last 50 years and the regressionists seem unaware that all of the regressive-abreactive approaches to healing are based on Freud's theories and psychotherapeutic practices. Most licensed health care professionals stopped using Regressive and Abreactive therapies 20 years ago... Modern day Cognitive and Behavioral Therapists focus on developing their patient's coping skills and abilities and changing their beliefs.

1. Should I take from this that you believe that we as hypnotists should follow the lead of "licensed health care professionals" in the approach we take with our clients?

2. Do you believe there is any distinction between the practice of regression and its effectiveness in and out of the context of hypnosis?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Malone on November 1, 2009 at 7:38am

Michael, although I do believe RTC can be a useful technique and I do use it on occasion, especially when the client has an expectation that regression will be used. However, I do agree that it has become a sacred cow in some quarters and I too resent the stance some trainers/practitioners take any intervention that doesn't involve RTC and abreaction is somehow an inferior "band aid." I still run into clients that I worked with over 10 years ago, with whom RTC and abreaction were not used, and they are still doing fine. If the techniques were a "band aid" then maybe there is something to be said for band-aids!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan French on November 1, 2009 at 8:29am

I totally and completely 1000% agree with you Michael. After all, psychotherapy itself has developed a lot since the days of Jung, Freud and Fritz Perls.

In the wrong hands, it resembles voo-doo to me. I think you have to be careful, for one thing, not to retraumatize the client. Having them beat on a damned pillow is not enough but for the moment, perhaps....unless the client totally buys into it. But there is not enough follow-up to know.

The Benny Hinn's of the world can probably create hysterical wellness a good part of the time but there's not enough follow-up and most of us are not well-enough trained in psychological theory and dynamics to take chances with other people's trauma's.

I think regression has tons of value but it's a slippery slope.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page