[dreaming] Roll Call: current emails on this list
Currently on the Key Contact List: BEGIN [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +d.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +0.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +4.. archive@jab.org +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] END [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dreaming] Dream Education: Discussion
THANKS, FARIBA, FOR YOUR VERY VALUABLE INPUT WHICH I HOPE WILL FIND RESPONSES FORTHCOMING. LOVE TO YOU AND DANIEL, RITA
Re: [dreaming] Dream Education: Discussion
Dear Jeremy:( everyone on the discussion list) Thank you for following up after our panel discussion on Ò the criteria for responsible dream work training.Ó We have been moving in the past month and settling to our new nest. I have been following the discussion but have not had the chance to reply. I like all the six criteria you have suggested. In fact recently we had a Departmental meeting and I brought numerous revision for our Dream Studies Program. I also read your criteria and we are considering them while we are revising our program. I would like to bring several issues for discussion: 1) when I was a Board member in 1991, I remember in one of our meetings a discussion about ASD certification on dreams. One of our anthropologist members was against the idea as she felt anyone should be able to share dreams and work with dreams. The logic of the argument had a profound effect on me to the point that when JFKU administrators asked me to develop a certificate program on dreams, I refused. The discussion is how interdisciplinary are these dream training programs? And when we make a certain criteria about working with dreams, from what discipline we make these presuppositions? I would be interested to hear also a perspective from an anthropologist in regard to our discussion. 2)The term ÒDream work TrainingÓ and ÒdreamworkersÓ in relation to the six criteria bring an interesting issue. Are we talking about therapy, counseling, consultant etc. As you know this is a very sensitive issue in the state of California. Referring to criteria # 3, What are the criteria for the person who is supervising the Òhands-onÓ dreamwork? Should she/he be a MFT (MFCC) or licensed psychologist, a shaman, a minister or practiced dream working in the field for so many years? So I think this is worth discussing. Also the question for discussion is Therapy vs dreamworking vs dream sharing. 3) We are also dealing with two different types of training programs. 1) academic 2) non-academic. Perhaps ASD can acknowledge two different types of dream training programs with a set of common criteria for both institutions such as ethics and different criteria appropriate for the institutions. I know this issue came up in our panel discussion on Òprofessional training in dream workÓ. Already I sensed a bit of competition when people in the panel were asked for the cost of their training programs which I thought was inappropriate. We are dealing with two different types of training programs. Well, I am interested to hear from you and the group. All the best, Fariba
Re: [dreaming] RE: 2000 conference
Dear Wendy, Your suggestions for conference 2000 are excellent and I think we should set aside some time during the Free time (!) that we may have in Wshington. Not only are we going to step into a new millenum ,but we 'll celebrate the 100th anniversary of the publication of Freud's Inerpretation of dreams. So some of the topics you suggest are timely. I organized for the Asheville conference a symposium on The future of dream research. We could talk about it. I hope Mark Blagrove will be able to attend the board meeting because he has some ideas also. I hope Flloyd is not a threath to your area... See you soon. Monique At 14:26 99-09-07 -0400, you wrote: > Kelly - > > In Santa Cruz we talked briefly about having some the >honored "elders of dream work" (I use the term for lack of a better one) >participate in some special way at the 2000 conference. I'd like to pursue >this and a few other rough ideas with you. I would love your feedback! > >* Have a panel where participants present what they feel are the most >momentous advances and/or biggest changes in dream work in the past 100 >years and where they see it heading in the next 100. > >* Have a "bridging the millenniums" panel with people who have been >the backbone of dream research in the past along with those who are picking >up the standard and carrying it on. What's the same? What's different? >What are the hopes and concerns? Where will dream work be 100 years from >now? We could honor some of our long-time members and be futuristic at the >same time. > >* Institute a "Lifetime Achievement" award to honor people whose work >has spanned a lifetime. It could be an annual event - like the Lifetime >Achievement awards in Hollywood. This would be to honor some of our older >members, hopefully during their lifetimes, although it could be >posthumously. The plaque or trophy or whatever wouldn't have to cost a lot >- but it would be a wonderful way to honor people's contributions over long >periods of time. Picking the first person would be the hardest part. > >* Create some kind of ASD "time capsule" to be opened in 2010 or >whenever. Not sure exactly how it would work, but it could be a lot of fun. > > Hope all is gong well with you. Looking forward to seeing >you at the board meeting. > > All the best - > > Wendy > > >
[dreaming] RE: 2000 conference
Kelly - In Santa Cruz we talked briefly about having some the honored "elders of dream work" (I use the term for lack of a better one) participate in some special way at the 2000 conference. I'd like to pursue this and a few other rough ideas with you. I would love your feedback! * Have a panel where participants present what they feel are the most momentous advances and/or biggest changes in dream work in the past 100 years and where they see it heading in the next 100. * Have a "bridging the millenniums" panel with people who have been the backbone of dream research in the past along with those who are picking up the standard and carrying it on. What's the same? What's different? What are the hopes and concerns? Where will dream work be 100 years from now? We could honor some of our long-time members and be futuristic at the same time. * Institute a "Lifetime Achievement" award to honor people whose work has spanned a lifetime. It could be an annual event - like the Lifetime Achievement awards in Hollywood. This would be to honor some of our older members, hopefully during their lifetimes, although it could be posthumously. The plaque or trophy or whatever wouldn't have to cost a lot - but it would be a wonderful way to honor people's contributions over long periods of time. Picking the first person would be the hardest part. * Create some kind of ASD "time capsule" to be opened in 2010 or whenever. Not sure exactly how it would work, but it could be a lot of fun. Hope all is gong well with you. Looking forward to seeing you at the board meeting. All the best - Wendy
Re: [dreaming] Principles : Projection
Dear Jeremy, I'm really pleased at how thoroughly your proposal is being reviewed by the extended family of the education committee. It's a clear sign to me that the proposal is addressing a very important aspect of the ASD's mission. I have two comments to offer, one substantive and one procedural. First, substantively: the discussion about projection is just fascinating--it makes me think we should have a panel on the topic at the 2000 conference! But putting that aside, I wonder if we could find a more inclusive way to state the basic point, to address the concerns of the people who worry about the theoretical baggage associated with the term "projection." Am I right that a more colloquial way of putting the idea would be something like this: "Dreamwork programs should teach people to be very careful about imposing their own business on other people's dreams"? Whether you call it projection, transference, bad manners, etc., isn't that the core of it? Second, procedurally: The Fall board meeting is at the beginning of October, and it would be great to have a revised proposal ready by then for the board to consider. Would you be willing, Jeremy, to draft a new proposal that includes the latest round of comments and send it out to the list for one more look? Thanks again for leading the charge on this one, Kelly
[dreaming] Projection: Principle or Perspective?
Hi Carol, I though I was going on vacation this morning, but now I'm delayed, hopefully only a short time. As so much dreamwork uses the theoretical perspective of projection, I don't think its a big deal to leave it in, or take it out as it will be intertwined with all the aspects of dreamwork, apparently. But to me, making projection as a universal principle rather than contemporary perspective puts the principles document out as a religious document revolving around the deification of Projection, an unquestionalble king-pin that stands outside the system, and cannot be questioned. I'm fine with the principles document be a spiritual document, but I think we should then explicity say this is so. This would also be a kind of break in trends with ASD in that before we have tried to treat all perspectives with some kind of nod. Dreamwork may be quite different that dreaming in general. I've pulled out a few of your statements. While I agree *personally* with them as beliefs, I see them *all* a religious statement, or at least, unverifiable fictions and perspectives: __projection process as the way the world comes into >being and continues to roll along. __Projection, even where it may not be >called such, is such an essential process of how we exist, create and >experience the world, that I know of no way that it can be separated out from >the other principles. __ projection is a major principle, perhaps >the quintessential principle, rather than a subtopic __Dreaming as we all know is at its heart >and soul a creative process just thinking, -Richard >As a student and soon-to-be teacher of the Course in Miracles, and a >long-term student of Buddhism and esoteric religions of all kinds, I come >into this discussion with a perspective that I would at least like to put >onto the table. The Course, as well as many religious traditions, including >Buddhism, speaks of the projection process as the way the world comes into >being and continues to roll along. Projection, even where it may not be >called such, is such an essential process of how we exist, create and >experience the world, that I know of no way that it can be separated out from >the other principles. The Course might even be paraphrased to say that >projection is the creation process. Dreaming as we all know is at its heart >and soul a creative process, as is the dreamwork. With all respect to >Richard, I do agree with Jeremy that projection is a major principle, perhaps >the quintessential principle, rather than a subtopic, and needs to be kept as >a principle in this endeavor. >Also respectfully submitted, >Carol > >
Re: [dreaming] Oneirotic Principletus
Dear All; I love it that we have this forum for discussion of Jeremy's timely proposal! It gives us all time for reflection. I love Richard's discussion on the methods of communication, the need for defining what is traditional face-to-face dream work, and feel this is very important to look at. Richard brings a great deal to the discussion with his electronic communciations experience and knowledge. Although I have not been following the details of the discussion as carefully as I would like, and plan to look at the principles more closely, I do have an immediate response on the projection issue. As a student and soon-to-be teacher of the Course in Miracles, and a long-term student of Buddhism and esoteric religions of all kinds, I come into this discussion with a perspective that I would at least like to put onto the table. The Course, as well as many religious traditions, including Buddhism, speaks of the projection process as the way the world comes into being and continues to roll along. Projection, even where it may not be called such, is such an essential process of how we exist, create and experience the world, that I know of no way that it can be separated out from the other principles. The Course might even be paraphrased to say that projection is the creation process. Dreaming as we all know is at its heart and soul a creative process, as is the dreamwork. With all respect to Richard, I do agree with Jeremy that projection is a major principle, perhaps the quintessential principle, rather than a subtopic, and needs to be kept as a principle in this endeavor. Also respectfully submitted, Carol
[dreaming] Oneirotic Principletus
Hi Jeremy and all, I'm not a voting member of the EDU committee, but I would generally accept all the principles offered with an addition to #3 which talks about normal (Air - mediated ?) communications vs computer mediated communications. This needs an proviso. see below. I also still have reservations about the projection principle, which to me is a "should have" but as a subtopic under the history of dreamwork. RE: #3 as stated: << (3) Any program training people to work with dreams should include a significant experience of adequately supervised, "hands-on", face-to-face dream work, leading and facilitating work with dreams, both with groups and individuals. (As electronic communications media become increasing important in our post-modern lives, this "hands-on" component may also be extended to include telephone and computer connected work with dreams, but traditional, face-to-face work must also be a significant element of the program. If the program does include training in working with dreams using electronic media, this work must also be supervised by instructors who themselves have adequate experience working with dreams using these media.) There should be written evaluations of the performance of trainees in these supervised situations. The criteria upon which these evaluations are based must be clearly stated, and applied equally. I realize I am being a bit of a futurist here, but I would add a proviso to this something like"..until such time that our communication interfaces offer no significant difference between face-to-face and computer mediated presence. " and drop the the word "traditional" in "traditional, face-to-face work" . Or operationally define it.What is *traditional* face-to-face dreamwork anyway? Projection: "Any program training people to work with dreams should have a fundamental component addressing the universal human process of unconscious "projection". This tranining component should include material relating to projection both as a major element in the creation of the manifest content of the dream itself, as well as a primary factor in the subsequent exploration and work with any dream or dream series." Projection is an interesting and powerful way to look at dreams, and depth psychology would collapse without it (theoretically) , but I have a funny feeling about it, and sorry I'm not being more articulate than "funny feeling". To me its like saying that any school of literature needs to not just mention shakespeare, but must teach Hamlet. It seems out of place to me to get into the benefits of Hamlet at this top level of basic dreamwork criteria. Oranges need to be talked about in the history of fruit class, but projection is like Florida Oranges, or orange seeds. I would feel any school that doesn't deal with this issue would be missing a major component in the history of dreamwork. But I think this would hold true for association techniques and dream recall, and exploration of peer/partnership group work. These are, to me, subtopics rather than principles. To me, projection is a technical/clinical term that imports the notion of the unconscious, the field of psychotherapy and a whole host of 20th century notions, as well as a host of Eastern spiritual notions, all of which may be significant and important in the history of dreamwork, but not necessarily a *primary component* or basic principle of a school that teaches dreamwork. Respectfully submitted, Richard "I wake up in the morning with a dream in my eyes." allen ginsberg Richard Wilkerson * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.dreamgate.com DreamGate, 4644 Geary Blvd PMB 171, San Francisco, CA 94118 (415) 221-3239 * Electric Dreams * DreamGate Publishing *
[dreaming] Off list until Wed sept 8
Hi Jeremy and all, I will be offline until wed sept 8th, so if I seemed to have dropped from your radar, don't worry. If you have problems with this list while I am gone, simple unsubscribe. You can do this by sending an email TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and in the Body of the email put only unsubscribe your-email (please change "your-email" to your own email. Richard Richard Wilkerson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dreaming] Principles : Projection
Dear Richard, et al: Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions about re-wording the "criteria for professional dream work training/education" proposal. Let me say again, at this stage of the game, it seems much more important to me that we come to agreement on what the basic criteria for responsible dream work training should be, rather than focussing prematurely on the details of a mechanism for "evaluation" of programs with regard to whether or not they meet those criteria... To my way of thinking, that's a whole separate question - one that we might well address further down the line, (when and if we can come to a clean agreement about just what those criteria might be/are in the first place.) However you word them, the seven "principles" I have tried to articulate seem to me to be the basic ones necessary... Do you feel like drawing up a second discussion draft incorporating the changes in wording and emphasis you think are appropriate? How do the rest of you feel about this? Do you think these seven principles are adequate? Are they sufficient? Are there other points we should we be considering? As always, Jeremy
[dreaming] Principles : Projection
Hi Jeremy, and all, I would suggest this [below (3) ] be either re-worded or placed under the criteria for adequate compliance of history-of-dreamwork: AS Stated: << "(3) Any program training people to work with dreams should have a fundamental component addressing the universal human process of unconscious "projection". This tranining component should include material relating to projection both as a major element in the creation of the manifest content of the dream itself, as well as a primary factor in the subsequent exploration and work with any dream or dream series." < Is this a major principle or a specialized sub-principle? It seems to me that when we unfold our expectations of what will constitute adequate coverage under the "History of Dreamwork", that this could go there quite well. As a major principle this imports the language and culture of 19th - 20th Century psychotherapy and turns a technical psychological term into something else that is not clear to me in this context. Although projection is a general English word and has become popular to use in some circles, I feel the way its being used here with unconscious is confusing. I would also drop the word "unconscious". An acceptable alternative is to develop dreamwork jargon, and define the terms within this context. I feel this project has in it a positive push towards building a standard that ~could~ be used and applied by *any* program wishing to have dreamwork training program that is sophisticated, ethical and ecclectic. There are psychotherapies now that find the word "unconscious" problematic and have dropped it as well. ++ Richard "If this were my dream education program"
[dreaming] Professional Dreamwork Criteria- Shift from Should
Hi Jeremy, and all, I would like to just address one issue here, without taking up the individual principles at this time. I will come back to the individual principles later. Since its not clear what role ASD will have, (standards production, or implementation, overseer?) some re-phrasing at this early point might help focus whether the dream education standards program is a moral or ethical one. I feel by dropping the word "should" we can re-vision towards ethics and towards being clear that these are "our" standards. We can justify our standards however we chose, (experience, body of evidence, tradition, testimonial, moral, whatever) and then reference that this is what the program will need to comply without the moral signification attached. Thus in general, I would shift the emphasis from "should" to "If you do this, then this is what you get" atttitude. Various senarios loom for me that we are at this time leaving open: 1. ASD offers advice only to schools in the form of ¿expected? standards. 2. ASD offers a credential or certificate, [to a group/organization/school or individual] or some other kind of notice of compliance to standards. Soft version: If school agrees and signs some compliance document. Strong version: ASD has some kind of test or verification procedure. 3. ASD offers some other standardization or judicial functions and services. + I have no deep investment in my *particular* wording, but want to give the gist of the emphasis shift which I do feel *is* important. RE#1 as stated: >> (1) Any program training people to work with dreams should have a clearly stated ethical component. We recommend the "Statement of Ethics for Dream Work" adopted by the ASD as a foundation for such ethical components of dream work training. How about (1) Programs training people to work with dreams will need to have a clearly stated ethical component for ASD standard compliance. ..." Rationale stated maybe later or somewhere else: Ethical disclosure offers thus and such benefits to the individual/group (which we can verify or not with research and experience and testimonials) and therefore complies with the ASD standards in the following ways RE # 2 Restated here as: (2) Any program training people to work with dreams should emphasize the multiple layers of meaning that are possible in every dream, and expose trainees to a variety of techniques and methods of exploration. Programs which offer to train people to work with dreams professionally, (i.e. responsibly, for-pay) must be free to emphasize one particular technique above others, but in order to achieve minimum standards of adequate professional training, these programs must also expose their trainees to a representative variety of different techniques and theoretical models. <<< "Any program training people to work with dreams should emphasize..." I would recommend dropping the "should" and replacing it with something more like "expected" : "Training programs are expected to emphasize..." Rationale stated maybe later or somewhere else: Teaching people who work with dreams a polyseminal approach offers thus and such benefits to the individual/group (which we can verify or not with research and experience and testimonials) and therefore complies with the ASD standards in the following ways RE: #3 as stated: << (3) Any program training people to work with dreams should include a significant experience of adequately supervised, "hands-on", face-to-face dream work, leading and facilitating work with dreams, both with groups and individuals. (As electronic communications media become increasing important in our post-modern lives, this "hands-on" component may also be extended to include telephone and computer connected work with dreams, but traditional, face-to-face work must also be a significant element of the program. If the program does include training in working with dreams using electronic media, this work must also be supervised by instructors who themselves have adequate experience working with dreams using these media.) There should be written evaluations of the performance of trainees in these supervised situations. The criteria upon which these evaluations are based must be clearly stated, and applied equally. How about re-phrasing: to "will need to" (3) Any program training people to work with dreams will need to include a significant experience of adequately supervised, "hands-on", face-to-face dream work, leading and facilitating work with dreams, both with groups and individuals. Rationale stated maybe later or somewhere else: Providing "hands-on", face-to-face dream work, leading and facilitating work with dreams, both with groups and individuals offers thus and such benefits
[dreaming] Re: Dream Education Proposal
Fellow dreamsters, In his proposal, Jeremy writes: << (4) Any program training people to work with dreams should offer an overview of the history of dream work as a world-wide activity. Although programs may choose to emphasize one aspect of this tradition, such as the European, medical/psychiatric, tradition of dream exploration, they should also offer at least an over-view of the many other strands of aboriginal and non-European work with dreams. This should include, but not be limited to exposure to those traditions which grant primacy to the dream as a means of communion with the realms of spirit.>> As a history major, I applaud the inclusion of a historical/survey course in any dreamwork education curriculum. As past veteran of many curriculum committee discussions, may I suggest that the sentences following the first in this paragraph be deleted for the purpose of submitting this proposal. They go beyond generalities of structure and enter into the domain of detail and specifics. The decision as to which plants should grow on the trellis is important, but is another stage in the planning process. Jeremy, you may wish to first gain approval for the idea and its overall framework, before moving on to this stage. Another option would be to open this issue for discussion here. Linda Lane Magallón (founding board member, past coordinator of the Dream Education Network, credentialed instructor)
Re: [dreaming] Dream Education: Discussion
Dear Richard et al, Yes, I am on the list and have been following the discussion. Since I have just taken over the chair from Kelly, I'm still not quite up to speed, and appreciate being able to follow the discussion to see what people have had on their minds. You'll hear more from me soon. Thanks for putting me on the list. Bonnelle Strickling "Wilkerson, Richard" wrote: > > Hi to all, > > A few people have been wondering if they are actually *on* this list > and missing the dialogue.No, you are subscribed, but we just haven't > begun discussing the topic yet. > > Stan Krippner, who is on the ASD board mail list, made some comments > on the original proposal, which I fowarded to this list. Stan regretfully > cannot join us on this list at this time. > > It may be a little unclear *who* is to be directing & leading the > discussion on Jeremy Taylor's Dream Education Proposal, so I just wanted, > if not to clarify, to at least define the shape of the fog. > > This proposal was originally suggeted to the ASD board and assigned to > the Education Committee to discuss, though we have assumed that like other > ASD committee meetings, its pretty much open to the general membership. > >However, the Education Chair, Kelly Bulkeley has become busy with the > Program 2000 and the Chair has moved to Bonnelle Strickling. I put > Bonnelle on this list and sent her a note, but she may not be on a daily > email cycle like some of you and I don't know when she will be able to > respond to this list. > >My suggestion is that Jeremy, you could lead the discussion or assign it > to someone on the education committee who is willing to lead the > discussion. Preferably someone close to the educational process, but not > necessarily. > > Also, if participants on the list send in some preliminary views and > comments on Dream Education and the possiblity of finding common ground, > this will also lead to some discussion. Or pick up on point # 2 or #2 and > send in some views.( I have included Jeremy Taylor's original > statements below as well). > > Here is a list of participants (email only). If you are not sure who's > who, visit the > ASD who's who page: > http://www.asdreams.org/idxwhoiswho.htm > > - Richard > > dreaming list includes: > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +d.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +d.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +4.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > +++ > > Ladies & Gentlemen: > > It certainly looks as though we had another great conference(!) I hope it > turns to be as successful financially as it was socially and professionally. > How soon will we know? > > Per our discussion at the Board Meeting on Saturday, I am sending a draft of > what seem to me to be minimum requirements for programs training people to do > non-specialized dream work. > > There are at least two aspects to "professional ethics": (1) the requirement > to avoid doing harm (through misrepresentation of credentials, false and > misleading advertising, robbing the dreamer of his/her autonomy in the dream > working process, using information gained in the course of professional work > for personal profit, etc.), all of which are, I believe adequately dealt with > in our "Statement of Ethics" -- and (2) the requirement to do good whenever > possible, especially including the ethical obligation to pass on to future > generations the wisdom, skills, and specialized knowledge of the field, > whatever it may be. > > As the sudden proliferation of dream work training programs all over the U.S. > over the past couple of years demonstrates, training people to do dream work > professionally, (i.e., responsibly, for pay), is clearly an idea whose time > has come. Obviously, training programs of this sort will continue to grow > and proliferate, whethe
Re: [dreaming] Dream Education: Discussion
Dear Richard, (& Everyone on the Discussion Listserve): Richard, thanks again for "riding herd" on this discussion about the minimal requirements for "professional dream work training"... I really do believe it is a very important issue(!) The "6 Point Proposal" (7, when you add the item about "projection") remains my best shot at the issue... Is it possible that people are simply in general agreement, and therefore have not bothered to "log in"??? Let me put out the request/suggestion that everyone compose a brief respose to "poll" on this question: ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS A GOOD PROPOSAL, AND THAT THE A.S.D. BOARD SHOULD TAKE ACTION ON IT? - IF NOT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER? I'm not sure what else I can do to spur this discussion forward. At the moment, I am finishing the final flourishes on my doctoral dissertation, and that, plus preparations to start up the teaching and weekend travel that takes up so much of the school year leave me without a lot of "disposable time"... As always, Reverend Jeremy Taylor, M.A., S.T.D. (hon.), D.Min. (pending) [Author of DREAM WORK, (Paulist Press, Mahwah, 1983), WHERE PEOPLE FLY & WATER RUNS UP HILL, (Warner Books, New York, 1992), and THE LIVING LABYRINTH, (Paulist Press, 1998), co-founder and past president of the international Association for the Study of Dreams]
[dreaming] Dream Education: Discussion
Hi to all, A few people have been wondering if they are actually *on* this list and missing the dialogue.No, you are subscribed, but we just haven't begun discussing the topic yet. Stan Krippner, who is on the ASD board mail list, made some comments on the original proposal, which I fowarded to this list. Stan regretfully cannot join us on this list at this time. It may be a little unclear *who* is to be directing & leading the discussion on Jeremy Taylor's Dream Education Proposal, so I just wanted, if not to clarify, to at least define the shape of the fog. This proposal was originally suggeted to the ASD board and assigned to the Education Committee to discuss, though we have assumed that like other ASD committee meetings, its pretty much open to the general membership. However, the Education Chair, Kelly Bulkeley has become busy with the Program 2000 and the Chair has moved to Bonnelle Strickling. I put Bonnelle on this list and sent her a note, but she may not be on a daily email cycle like some of you and I don't know when she will be able to respond to this list. My suggestion is that Jeremy, you could lead the discussion or assign it to someone on the education committee who is willing to lead the discussion. Preferably someone close to the educational process, but not necessarily. Also, if participants on the list send in some preliminary views and comments on Dream Education and the possiblity of finding common ground, this will also lead to some discussion. Or pick up on point # 2 or #2 and send in some views.( I have included Jeremy Taylor's original statements below as well). Here is a list of participants (email only). If you are not sure who's who, visit the ASD who's who page: http://www.asdreams.org/idxwhoiswho.htm - Richard dreaming list includes: +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +d.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +d.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +4.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ Ladies & Gentlemen: It certainly looks as though we had another great conference(!) I hope it turns to be as successful financially as it was socially and professionally. How soon will we know? Per our discussion at the Board Meeting on Saturday, I am sending a draft of what seem to me to be minimum requirements for programs training people to do non-specialized dream work. There are at least two aspects to "professional ethics": (1) the requirement to avoid doing harm (through misrepresentation of credentials, false and misleading advertising, robbing the dreamer of his/her autonomy in the dream working process, using information gained in the course of professional work for personal profit, etc.), all of which are, I believe adequately dealt with in our "Statement of Ethics" -- and (2) the requirement to do good whenever possible, especially including the ethical obligation to pass on to future generations the wisdom, skills, and specialized knowledge of the field, whatever it may be. As the sudden proliferation of dream work training programs all over the U.S. over the past couple of years demonstrates, training people to do dream work professionally, (i.e., responsibly, for pay), is clearly an idea whose time has come. Obviously, training programs of this sort will continue to grow and proliferate, whether the ASD takes any action to support and suggest fundamental principles of "quality control" for them, or not. As those of you who were present will recall, there was clear expression of the desire for support and guidance from ASD expressed by most of the founder/directors of the six different programs represented on the ASD panel discussing "Professional Dream Work Training..." at the Santa Cruz Conference. On Saturday, the Board voted to begin to explore this question, and I agreed to supply a discussion draft of what I, at least, perceive to be the fundamental and necessary building blocks of any responsible, non-specialized dream work training program. In fulfillment of that commitment, I am submitting the following for your consideration and discussion: 6 BASIC CRITERIA FOR RESPONSIBLE DREAM WORK TRAINING "Professional practitioners of any skil
Re: [dreaming] Re-post from Stan Krippner
Hi Richard, Is there a discussion on either [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the [EMAIL PROTECTED]? If so, I'm not receiving any e-memos. Guess my sign-up didn't take??? Linda In a message dated 8/27/99 10:46:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << From: "SKrippner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [asd-board] Follow-up on Criteria for Preofessional Training Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:02:42 -0700 BestServHost: lists.best.com Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that examples of each type of projection would be the best way to communicate your meaning. It will be fairly easy to give examples of transference, counter transference, and projection (deliberate and unintended) in dreamworking sessions. Stan. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [asd-board] Follow-up on Criteria for Preofessional Training Dear Stan, Thanks for your participation in this discussion. I do believe that the issue of "projection" (in ALL its forms, including "transference" and even more importantly "counter-transference") really does need to be a basic building block of all minimally adequate dream work training... How might that best be operationalized, as you suggest? It sounds like an excellent idea... Could you offer an example of how it might be donw? Thanks again. As always, Jeremy --- Headers Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v60.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:46:26 -0400 Received: from lists1.best.com (lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v60.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:46:17 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.ls) id KAA08550; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Wilkerson, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [dreaming] Re-post from Stan Krippner Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:36:53 -0700 BestServHost: lists.best.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>
[dreaming] Re-post from Stan Krippner
From: "SKrippner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [asd-board] Follow-up on Criteria for Preofessional Training Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:02:42 -0700 BestServHost: lists.best.com Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that examples of each type of projection would be the best way to communicate your meaning. It will be fairly easy to give examples of transference, counter transference, and projection (deliberate and unintended) in dreamworking sessions. Stan. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [asd-board] Follow-up on Criteria for Preofessional Training Dear Stan, Thanks for your participation in this discussion. I do believe that the issue of "projection" (in ALL its forms, including "transference" and even more importantly "counter-transference") really does need to be a basic building block of all minimally adequate dream work training... How might that best be operationalized, as you suggest? It sounds like an excellent idea... Could you offer an example of how it might be donw? Thanks again. As always, Jeremy
[dreaming] More on Dream Education survey
Hi to all, Thanks for the updates you have been sending me. I know I'm really pressing my luck now, but since Don Kuiken did spend time and wrote these out, I'm also passing along guidelines for sending info on schools and dream education. Please save these and pass them around to any dream educators you know: Also available online at http://www.asdreams.org/subidxedugraduatestudies.htm Graduate Studies in Dreams GUIDELINES for Submission a. The name of your university (e.g., University of British Columbia), centered in bold print at the top of the first page. b. The name of your department (e.g., Department of Psychology), also centered in bold print, just under the name of your university. If your Department has a recognized program in dream studies, also indicate the name of the program (e.g., Dream Studies Program, Department of Psychology). c. A brief description of the major characteristics of your department's opportunities for graduate level dream studies, including educational goals, orientation toward research or scholarship, practicum experiences, special opportunities, and so on. Indicate clearly the degrees offered, i.e., whether yours is a Master's Degree Program, a Ph.D. program, etc. If your department has special features (e.g., related programs in clinical or counselling psychology) or particular research or scholarly emphases, these features should be spelled out. d. A list of all faculty members involved in dream studies, with a description of the research or scholarly expertise of each person. Describe each person's area of expertise in a brief paragraph, preferably providing a few representative publication references. Information about each faculty member's educational background (e.g., Ph.D., University of British Columbia, 1990") may be useful to prospective students and their advisors. If possible, provide a URL for each person's web site. Note: Defining who is or is not involved in dream studies is not always easy. Remember, however, that prospective students often do not clearly know what they want to study in graduate school, or even what dream studies encompass. We recommend that you use the broadest possible definition of dream studies and include descriptions of any faculty whose areas of expertise might be related. For example, there might be faculty members who do not consider themselves involved primarily in dream studies but who have related interests (e.g., a clinical psychologist studying daydreaming). If these individuals could contribute to the education of students with interests in dreams, then we suggest that you include them in your description. e. A list of faculty members from departments or programs elsewhere in your university that might be relevant to graduate students who are studying dreams in your department. f. A brief description of courses, degree requirements, and other characteristics of the curriculum. It may be helpful to describe informal features of the graduate experience, such as colloquium series, reading groups, or research groups in or out of your department. g. A note about costs (tuition, at least), and the availability of financial support. h. The name of persons whom interested students could contact for more information, such as a faculty member, a graduate program coordinator or secretary, or the chair of the department. Be sure to include the full address and, if appropriate, a telephone number, electronic mailing address, or the URL for a departmental web site. i. Please provide these materials in a file (on disc or attached to an e-mail message) that is formatted in a familiar word processing program such as Word or WordPerfect. Send to the ASD Web Manager, Richard Wilkerson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dreaming] Graduate Studies in Dreams
HI to all, Before you start the ethics discussion, I thought I might put this related resource out [see below].. If you have updates, additions or changes, send them to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Richard http://www.asdreams.org/subidxedugraduatestudies.htm The Association for the Study of Dreams would like to provide detailed Web site descriptions of any graduate programs that support dream studies. Prospective graduate students with interests in dreaming often know very little about the range of programs available. Moreover, these students' advisors often are unaware of faculty at other universities whose expertise is relevant to their students' goals. Consequently, the match between students and programs is often not optimal. We are soliciting descriptions of opportunities for graduate study from as many universities as possible. We want to collate those descriptions and place them on the ASD Web site so that they are widely available and readily accessible. To be successful, this project requires that one contact person provide a description of the opportunities for graduate study that are available at his/her institution. I am hoping that you will be one such contact person. If so, please follow the attached guidelines to prepare a description of the opportunities available for dream studies at your institution. Please respond regardless of whether your institution offers an entire program in dream studies or whether you individually supervise graduate students in some area of dream research or scholarship. Don Kuiken is not pursuing this project at the moment, but would like to see it continue. Michael Vannoy-Adams 1 Washington Square Village 5A New York, NY 10012 John Antrobus Department of Psychology City College of New York NY, NY 10031 Roseanne Armitage University of Texas SW Medical Center Department of Psychiatry Dallas, TX 75235-9070 Deirdre Barrett Suffolk University Psychology Department 41 Temple St. Boston, MA 02114-4280 (617) 573-8782 Mark Blagrove Department of Psychology University of Wales, Swansea Singleton Park Swansea SA2 8PP Wales George Baylor Department de psychologie University de Montreal CP 6128 Succ Centreville Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7 Canada (514)343-6783 Kathryn Belicki Department of Psychology Brock University St. Catherines ON L3M 3G7 Mario Bertini, Ph.D. Departemento di Psicologia Universita Degli Studi de Roma via degli Scolopi 19 00136 Roma Italy 261-1619 or 449-2449 Fariba Bogzaran 21 Almaden Court San Francisco, CA 94118 (415) 454-2793 Delia Cushway University of Birmingham School of Psychology Birmingham, England B15 2BJ Joseph De Koninck School of Psychology University of Ottawa Ottawa KIN 6N5 Canada (613) 564-9170 William Dement Sleep Research Center Stanford University 701 Welch Road Ste. 2226 Palo Alto, CA Mary-Therese Dombeck University of Rochester 53 Genesee Park Blvd. Rochester, NY 14611-4055 Bill Domhoff Department of Psychology University of California, Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 950640 Don Donderi Dept of Psychology McGill University Montreal, Canada ? Wendy Doniger University of Chicago Divinity School Chicago, IL ?? Harry Fiss 75 Westmont Street West Hartford, CT 06117-2929 James Fosshage 16 Poplar Road Demarest, NJ 07627-1310 Russell Gruber Eastern Illinois University Department of Psychology Charleston, IL 61920 Ernest Hartmann 27 Clark St. Newton, MA 02159-2425 Stephan Hau Sigmund Freud Institut Myliusstrasse 20 Frankfurt/Main D-60323 Germany Clara Hill University of Maryland Counseling Psychology Baltimore, MD 20742 (301) 405-5791 J. Allan Hobson Harvard Medical School 74 Fenwood Road Boston, MA 02115 (617) 734-9645 Don Kuiken Department of Psychology University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada T6G 2E9 Phone: 403 492-8760; Fax 403 492-1768 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Philip King 1020 Aoloa Place 410-B Kailua, HI 96734 Roger Knudsen 705 David Drive Oxford, OH 45056 David Koulack University College Room 449 220 Dysert Road Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 Waud Kracke University of Illinois Department of Anthropology 1007 W. Harrison Suite 3102 Chicago, IL 60607 Stanley Krippner The Saybrook Institute 450 Pacific Ave 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94133 (415) 433-9200 Ross Levin Einstein College of Medicine 1165 Morris Park Ave. Bronx, NY 10461 Barbara Meier-Faber Universitat Zürich, Klinische Psychologie Schmelzbergstrasse 40 Zürich CH-8044 SWITZERLAND Tore Nielsen Dream & Nightmare Lab Hopital Sacre-Coeur & Dept. of Psychology University de Montreal Montreal H4J 1C5 Canada (514) 338-3350 Carl W. O'Nell University of Notre Dame Department of Anthropology Notre Dame, IN 46556 Michael Perlis 6063 N. Avon Road #1 Honeoye Falls, NY 14472-8805 Helene S. Porte Department of Psychology Cornell University 216 Uris
[dreaming] Welcome to the ASD discussion List
Hi to all, Welcome to the ASD discussion list [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list was created for the discussion of the topics raised by Jeremy Talyor concerning ASD and dream education. At this time, the list is open to all members, though is generally for the use of the ASD Education Committee. If you would like to be removed from this list, send an email TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] And in the Body of the email put only unsubscribe your-email (please change "your-email" to your own email address) Thanks, Richard Wilkerson List Manager WHO is on the list to date? see e-mail addresses below [EMAIL PROTECTED] = list name +++ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive@jab.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] END dreaming
[dreaming]
Dear Raija-Leena Punamäki, dear discussion group, I would like to respond to the author's responses. First, I would like to discuss the problem of eliciting dream recall frequency via dream diary. Previous research has shown that participation in a dream study or even a single emphasis made by the experimenter could increase dream recall in a substantial way. Keeping this in mind it seems plausible that many factors could contribute to dream recall frequency. What I meant by the statement 'The participants know the aim of the study' is the following. Participants have concluded (I think) that the purpose of the study is to look for relationships between trauma and dreaming (They received a dream diary ans specialized questionnaires). So it seems plausible that the high exposure group will focuse on dreams which may be related to traumtic events. All participants were highly motivated and reported up to 4 dreams per week (Gaza group). This may be explained by the focus on trauma-related dreams since adults (students) recall on the average one to two dreams per week. Second, I don't know whether you understand my question concerning the sampling method. You wrote "in one household all children who wanted to participate... (p. 241). This mean to me that some children in the given age range participated and some not. I would like to know the percentage of children who refused to participate. Third, in my research I used measures of central tendency according to the measurement level of the dream content scales, i. e., mean, median or modus. First of all, I will check whether there are substantial correlations between dream length and the waking-life variables since these relationships could lead to overestimations of the correlations between dream content scales and waking-life measures. Bill Domhoff would propose the usage of ratios in order to control for dream length and number of dreams. One can compute, for example, the ratio of aggressive interactions per dream character or the ratio of aggression directed at the dreamer and aggression directed on others and so on. For more details see Domhoff (1996). Finding meaning in dreams. Forth, I would like to know how you computed the correlation between dream atmosphere/feeling scores and morning mood rating. As I understand you could only include subjects with at least two dreams to compute correlations. (By the way, we found also a stronger carry-over effect for positive emotions that for negative emotions in a small sample of adults). Fifth, your psychological symptoms scale includes an item (or two items) concerning nightmare frequency and bad dreams. Did you analyze this (these) item(s) which seems promising since there is s substantial difference between the Gaza group and the Galiliee group (p. 247). I would compute an analysis as previously mentioned for the number of negatively toned dreams in that one-week period to test the continuity hypothesis of dreaming. It seems not plausible to me that the traumatic environment increase dream recall frequency per se but recall of negatively toned dreams. These analyses will add much material to the discussion of the present results. Sixth, I do not understand why you have not carried out a regression analysis including all variables, i. e., salience measures, age, gender, trauma-related measures, coping styles, and the three subscores of the psychological symptoms. Overall, I think the interpretation of the data is not an easy task. As I mentioned earlier the explained variance of the regression analyses is about 10 % (except for the analysis including salience measures). This should lead to very careful interpretations since a variety of other factors may contribute to the obtained results. Sincerely, Michael Schredl Dipl. Psych. Michael Schredl Sleep laboratory Central Institute of Mental Health P. O. Box 12 21 20 68072 Mannheim Germany Telefon: Germany 0621/1703-602 Fax: Germany 0621/23429 Homepage: http:/www.zi-mannheim.de/schlaflab/abteilung.htm
[dreaming] Responses to comments [ascii]
Dear Raija-Leena Punamaki, (and all) Some of the list subscribers are using text only readers, so I have taken the liberty of distributing the ascii version of your message - Richard Wilkerson, technical support manager. Dear Colleagues, Helsinki, 19 May 1998 Hereunder are my (Punamaki - the author) responses to your comments on the Article: "Determinants and mental health effect of dream recall among children living in traumatic conditions". First let me apologize for the delay for my response, due accumulation of deadlines. Now I would like thank you all for having devoted your time to comment the article. Getting feedback is a luxury to any researcher. As a beginner in dream research (although not in developmental psychology and stress research), I felt like a student when "all the big names were commenting my article!". In this communication I will concentrate on your critical comments on methodological problems and respond to each of you separately. Later, it would be intriguing to discusses specific themes, exchange ideas about the problems and develop some dynamic hypotheses for forthcoming research. MICHAEL SCHREDL WRITES: >I personally do not like the mood congruency hypothesis since >it is not testable. How should it be possible to measure dream >emotions independently from mood after awakening. I would like >to name it carry over effect. It seems more plausible to me >that dreams influence morning mood. My study setting was entirely based on one-source information concerning the morning mood and dream content. I fully agree that a setting involving separate, more objective and independent measures of dream content (across the night and various REM), and morning recall and emotion reporting would have allowed us to test some of the hypotheses. Also the contemporary emotion theories would brovide much more sophisticated tools to depict the emotional dynamics than the one I used. You are right about "mood congruency", it could be called "carry-over effect". Apparently I was too excited by the mood congruency literature, and would like to study it in the dream context. Let's discuss it later. To Michael's comment on the Method Section: MICHAEL SCHREDL WRITES: >Personally, I think the participants knew very well the aims of >the study. I would protest your argument that the participants knew very well the aims of the study(Mental health function of dreaming, role of dream recall in traumatic environment). My text was apparently confusing in the previous draft of the manuscript, which you must refer to: the purpose of the study was NOT intensively explained to the participants. I wrote that the instructions were written in a tightly-scripted statement in order to guarantee consistency from home to home. (It went: "Nocturnal dreams are familiar to all of us. We would like to better understand childrens' dreams and to know what they 'see' in their dreams. Therefore we kindly ask you to report every morning what kind of dreams you had in the night...". The instructions also included a clause about us maintaining the anonymity of each child and technical advice as to how to report. I have the dream diary forms in English (in addition to Arabic, Kurdish, Somalian, Spanish and Finnish). We were conscious that we should absolutely avoid exerting ANY pressure on substance, quality or quantity of dreams. We never even hinted to the children that they should report numerous or little dreams, and the variation in dream recall was substantial and indeed proves that. MICHAEL SCHREDL WRITES: >Second, the results may be influenced by experimenter effects >since the groups were interviewed by two different persons. >The researcher himself (highly motivated) obtained the sample >with higher dream recall frequency. I think a comment on this >should be given. It would have been ideal to use the same field workers in both places, but sadly, for "security reasons", even a Gaza resident who may travel to work in Israel must return daily to Gaza. I would argue that fielworkers in both Gaza and the Galilee, were highly motivated. MICHAEL SCHREDL WRITES: >Personally, I like the funny sampling method ... There is, >however, one weakness in this approach shortly addressed by >Punamäki. She did not give a response rate or a sample size of >all potential participants. This could lead to severe biases in >the data. We took every child (in the chosen age range) in every third house in a given area. Therefore it is impossible to report the sample size of all potential participants, because we have no idea about how many potential participants live in houses that we did not visit. On results: Please, see my response to Peretz Lavie concerning the confusing values in the figures. I would like to hear all of m
[dreaming] Responses to comments on dream recall article
Dear colleagues,
thank you for your comments on the article "Determinants and
mental health effects of dream recall..
As an attached file, you will receive my comments.
As I mention I would be pleased to continie the thematic discusion
Raija-Leena Punamäki
P.s.The file has been sent (1) wp-form and (2) encoded as basic MIME.
If you have problems to open it, I can send it by txt (ascii) or as
word 6.1.--Message-Boundary-10541
Content-type: text/plain; charsetì-ASCII
Content-description: Information about this message.
This message contains a file prepared for transmission using the
MIME BASE64 transfer encoding scheme. If you are using Pegasus
Mail or another MIME-compliant system, you should be able to extract
it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system
administrator for help.
File information ---
File: PUNAMAKI.WP
Date: 19 May 1998, 10:22
Size: 45600 bytes.
Type: WordPerfect
PUNAMAKI.WP
[dreaming]
The article on which we have been asked to comment addresses many of the most significant issues in the field of stress effects on dreaming. The database is large and potentially quite informative. Yet like Dr. Lavie, I am concerned that there may be some confusion between association and causation; for example, it is almost certainly premature to argue from correlational data that infrequent dream recall protects children from developing depressive symptoms but makes them more susceptible to somatic and anxiety symptoms. Also, I would be interested in the authors' response to my view that a necessary distinction between TRAUMATIC events and major life changes/stressors has been obscured in the Introduction. While it is clear that the authors are interested in the effects of TRAUMATIC stressors on dream recall (and so use the Traumatic Events Checklist), they appear at times to equate bereavement, or divorce for that matter, with trauma. This would appear to be at some variance with the DSM-IV's sense of a traumatic stressor. The essence of trauma may be missed by referring to a major life change as a "less severe trauma." Inferences about the effects on dream recall of TRAUMATIC stress, vs. other forms of stress, may become confused. As an aside, Ross et al. would likely agree, but have never shown, that traumatic experiences increase dream recall. I look forward to further discussion by the authors and the group of discussants of this interesting article. Richard J. Ross, M.D., Ph.D.
[dreaming] discussion
Hi all,
I just got back from nine days away to find an e-bushel of fascinating
comments on the paper by Punamaki.
I won't make any detailed methodological comments at this time, but I have
two comments I'd like the group to consider.
1) Whatever problems there are in the study, Punamaki has certaiinly
gathered important data in two more-or-less well-defined populations of
children and adolescents. Could we expand this data-base? Would ASD, with
its international membership, perhaps be able to gather similar data sets in
various parts of the world. Ideally sets of dreams from carefully defined
populations of children, adols, and adults, in areas judged to vary
systematically not only on high trauma vs low trauma, but perhaps on other
variables of interest to the world such as economic level,,
industrialization,, education etc.
What I have in mind is a broad data-base that could be used to answer many
questions, not simply the ones about determinants of recall etc
I suggest this partly in my role as chair of the not-very-active ASD
research committee. However if there is interest in this as a possible ASD
project ("2000 dreams for the year 2000" ?) the methodology should be
carefully discussed ahead of time, and it should be led by someone much more
statistically sophisticated than I.
2) I was most intrigued by Kathy Belicki's comments, especially by the
data she mentions on betrayal, which appear to support the hierarchy
formulated by Alighieri, D (1319) in which treachery (betrayal) iis the worst
evil, far worse than mere murder for instance. I'd be interested in hearing
more about this from Kathy or anyone else working on trauma.
Best,Ernest
RE: [dreaming] Initial comments
michael- i thought your comments very interesting- i guess i should identify myself as a referee too- many of the points raised by you and others were among the ones i raised too- i wish at least some of these problems had been ameliorated... david ps could you send me a copy of your review paper on recall- maybe best send it to my home address: David Koulack 323 Kingsway Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R3M 0G6
[dreaming] Initial comments
Hi everybody, Before I will read your comments on the target paper I will formulate my first and second impressions (I was referee on two drafts of the paper). If you did not understand what I say (my native language is German) please do not hesitate to ask me. General comments: I very much appreciate the work of Raija-Leena Punamäki. Every researcher's heart will beat faster if she/he had the possibility to analyze such data. In general, the studied population is very interesting from a political point of view (a repressed minority). Although I like the paper there are of course a lot of topics I will address that I had handled in a different way. It seems that Popper's rational critizism is crucial for scientific development. If I say everything is okay nothing will happen. The comments will be ordered into sections which are parallel to those in the paper. Introduction I recently published an extensive overview on the dream recall literature (Schredl, M., & Montasser, A. (1996-97). Dream recall: state or trait variable? - Part I and Part II. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 16, 181-210, 239-261. I found 6 models and hypothesis constructed for explaining intraindividual and/or interindividual diffenrences in dream recall frequency. 1. Repression hypothesis (Freud) 2. Life-style hypothesis (Schonbar) 3. Interference hypothesis (Cohen and Wolfe) 4. Salience hypothesis (Cohen and MacNeilage) 5. Arousal-Retrieval model (Koulack and Goodenough) 6. Functional state-shift hypothesis (Koukkou and Lehmann) The research provide some evidence for each of these models but a model integrating all aspects is lacking. I stress this fact because Punamäki selected only a few hypothesis of the pool. In general, there exist serious problems in evaluating the hypothesis since some of them (repression hypothesis, interference hypothesis, salience hypothesis) are not testable in a direct way. Contrary to classical memory theory the original stimuli (experienced dream) is not measurable. One could only measure the recalled dream. These remarks should be understood as hints to be very careful in interpreting the data of the present study but of all other studies, too. I personally do not like the mood congruency hypothesis since it is not testable. How should it be possible to measure dream emotions independendly from mood after awakening. I would like to name it carry-over effect. It seems more plausible to me that dreams influence morning mood. Maybe research, for example carried out by Domhoff (about 1969) support this hypothesis. He investigated recall of dreams during the day triggered by an experience. Method section In a previous draft Punamäki wrote that the participants were intensively informed about the purpose of the study. Since it was shown that dream recall frequency could be affected easily by instruction I proposed that Punamäki should comment on this possibility. Personally, I think the participants knew very well the aims of the study. Second, the results may be influenced by experimenter effects since the groups were interviewed by two different persons. The researcher himself (highly motivated) obtained the sample with higher dream recall frequency. I think a comment on this should be given. Personally, I like the funny sampling method. If you would do such a thing in Germany, everybody would laugh at you. There is, however, one weakness in this approach shortly addressed by Punamäki. He did not give a response rate or a sample size of all potential participants. This could lead to severe biases in the data. Results I have some problems with figures 3 and 4 since they do not depict raw data but lines computed by the statistic program. Second, I do not understand the formula for deriving correlations between dream emotions and morning mood. Is N ranging from 2 to 7. If so, it may be an artefact that high recallers had higher coefficients since more data enter in the correlation coefficient. Discussion First, I think it would be very interesting not only measuring dream recall freqency per se but also analyze frequency of negative dreams or nightmare frequency (Punamäki elicited it in the composite score sleep difficulties). In view of the continuity hypothesis I would expect a heightened frequency of negatively toned dreams. The above mentioned objections to the testability of the salience hypothesis should lead to very careful conclusion. In a recently conducted study we found that high recallers reported more positive emotions than low recallers whereas negative emotions do not differ. We explained this fact that high recallers are more trained in recalling dream content since research has shown that positive emotions were often not mentioned explicitely (Hall and Van de Castle). I cite this data since I would like to stress the fact that one could not be sure of the direction or of causal relationships. Sleep laboratory data exploring the relationship between physiological and/or cortic
Re: [dreaming] Data reliability?!
Hi folks, Unless I'm reading the results section of this paper incorrectly, I think that some of Peretz' (and David's) uncertainties about data representation in the figures can be explained by the fact that the author at times plots on the Y axis raw scores and at times weights from the regression analyses. These should vary from analysis to analysis. But I agree that there are some missing results whose inclusion would have made the study much more interpretable. The misquoting of Dagan, et al (1991) is particularly unfortunate. Tore Tore A. Nielsen, PhD Dream & Nightmare Lab, Hopital du Sacre-Coeur, 5400, boul Gouin Ouest, Montreal, Qc, Canada H4J 1C5 514-338-2693 (tel), 514-338-2531 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://prelude.psy.umontreal.ca/dreams/ Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Universite de Montreal Research Scholar of the FRSQ
[dreaming] initial comment(s)
I've been reading the comments to date with interest. Although I admire Dr. Lavie's meticuousness in cataloguing discrepancies and ommissions (too bad he wasn't a reviewer on this paper), I don't feel these negate being able to discuss the findings. For example, in figure 4, although he's right that there is a blatant mistake in either the numbers on the horizontal axes or their labeling as simple level rather that interaction coefficeints, I tend to assume that the relationships between symptoms and events are being accurately represented. And although, yes, it would be interesting to know more about cause of death of relatives, it is still interesting to see how this variable interacts with dream recall--"violence and accidents" rules out the natural causes that would account for most of the variations not due to the occupation. In response to Kathy's comments about the depression findings, I wanted to say that since that although paper & pencil dperessions measures have reasonable correlations with clinical depression in a population without major significant external losses, the items include many things about sadness and crying that pick up normal grief reactions also and in this population, unless you looked at a few particular items about low self-esteem, you may have something that is more sadness that "depression" in the maladaptive sense. And although "anxiety" is the natural reaction to some of these traumatic events, sadness may be the more natural one to death of a relative and other of the loss-related events. I know the focus was intentionally on dream recall, but it seems the author has only scratched the surface of a very rich data base. I'd love to see future analyses of themes such as Cartwright's distinction between repetitive unpleasant dreams vs. ones that attempt mastery or Terr's of literal re-enactments vs. incorporating traumas into ongoing concerns in terms of whether these distinguish sypmtomatic vs. nonsymptomatic children -Deirdre Barrett
[dreaming] Data reliability?!
Hi everybody, After reading the first two comments on the "Determinants ans mental health effects..." I am afraid that my evaluation is drastically different. I read the paper several times and each time I read it I was more confused. There are too many questions related to the data presentation and data collection procedure that cast some doubt regarding the meaning of the findings. The following are just few examples to exemplify my points: 1. The scales for the frequency of dream recall in Figures 1 and 2 ranged from 9 to 13, while the same data in Figure 3 range from 1 to 3 how come? 2. Similarly, the scale for depression scores range from -.9 to -1.2 while the scores for anxiety range from -1 to 9? (Fig 4). 3. There is no information on the magnitude of the differences in dream recall frequency between the so called traumatized and the so called non traumatized subjects. Only data on "every night recallers" and "no recallers" are provided. 5. There is no information on the number of subjects in each category of traumatic events (Figures 1a 1b and 2). It is very difficult to understand these findings without some idea on the number of subjects in each category. Likewise, no data on the number of subjects in the three repression category groups are provided (Figure 3). 6. What are the definitions of frequent and infrequent dream recalls (every night ? 6/7 nights? vs 0?, 1-2/7 nights???). Why the categories are inverted in Figure 4a and 4b? 7. Why the same scale for the level of traumatic events in figure 4a and 4b range from 0.4 to 0.9 in (a) and from 2 to 16 in (b)? 8. The differences between the traumatized and non-traumatized groups are far from being clear. While there was no difference between the groups regarding how frequently they were wounded, 12% of the trauma group vs 6% of the other group reported losing a family member through death. There is no mentioning of the kind of death, violent death? accidents? Since there is a very substantial diffrence in life expectancy between the two regions such a difference is no surprising. These are just few of the problems. How anyone can make any sense of the findings without sorting out these issues? I also found it particularly distressing that in the discussion section, Dagan Lavie and Bliech (1991) study is cited as supporting the observation that "the sleep of traumatized people is lighter.." while this study reported precisely the opposite. It showed that paradoxically the sleep of traumatized people was deeper...This paradoxical finding was just replicated in an independent group of war related PTSD patinets (Lavie et al , Biological Psychiatry, in press). I await your advice how to treat these findings, Peretz Lavie Sleep Lab, Technion Israel Institute of Technology
[dreaming]
A quick clarification to my initial comments: my asking "so what do we make of the findings between dream recall and type of symptoms" was not intended to be a rhetorical question. I would love to know what you all think of that finding. Kathy
[dreaming] initial comment(s)
Hi all, Reading this article was a particular pleasure for me because it pulled together both where I began in studying dreams (studying frequency of dream recall in both my undergraduate and graduate research) and my current interests (the impact of trauma on psychological functioning). Intriguingly, I never thought to juxtapose those two interests but now that someone else has done it, it seems like such an obvious thing to do. Mind you I had to first get over my jealousy over 1) the nature of the sample, 2) the size of the sample, and 3) the incredible participation rate. Puts to shame anything I have done! However, more seriously, the author is to be applauded for the first two and the participants for the last. The paper itself is a remarkably scholarly and lucid article. And now for a few loosely connected remarks... I like the fact that the author differentiated between different types of trauma. There is considerable literature to back up their belief that observed violence is less traumatic than directly experienced. However, their finding with gender highlights an even more important "truth": we cannot judge for another what "should" be more traumatic because individual meaning and experience inevitably shapes how stressful events are experienced. This often becomes a problem in empirical studies because our designs to do not easily accommodate such individual experience (and our statistics treat it as error). As an aside, I have been ruminating increasingly on the varying utility of empirical/quantitative versus qualitative methodologies. Especially with dreams it often feels like we lose a great deal of information when we drop these experiences into a regression melting pot (says the woman who continues to primarily use empirical methodology and regression analyses in her own research). Recently, in the research on abuse, "betrayal" has emerged as a variable of interest in classifying trauma that may predict poor psychological functioning and increased use of dissociation. Specifically, the hypothesis is that trauma which involves a betrayal of trust (e.g. the situation where a parent or respected authority is the perpetrator) is more traumatic, particularly to children, then other stressful events. In its extreme form, the hypothesis would predict that greater violence experienced at the hand of a stranger is less traumatic than "milder" violence at the hand of a parent. Now I may be on slippery ground here, because I am not aware of the nuances of the violence in that region, but it would appear that as a group these children are exposed to violence from "outsiders" which would not have that element of betrayal. I guess this takes me in several directions... we need more research on what makes trauma traumatic. We need more research, like this study, on the effects of different qualities of trauma. We need to think about how our methods can be adapted to be more sensitive to nuances in meaning associated with trauma (to idiographic experiences of trauma). Let me be clear that I am NOT saying that these children's trauma is trivial. In fact, I would imagine we should think of both groups as representing to some degree a rather stressed population. For example, I am a little concerned about the closeness in scores of the two groups on the psychological functioning measures. My guess is that this is not a measurement problem but may reflect the experience of the children. From my meager experience of one trip to Israel, Galilee is geographically close to hot spots and the reality of war seems never far from anyone's mind. I remember a playground which contained brightly painted tanks, "reclaimed" from an earlier round of hostilities. As a child I lived on military bases in Europe. Although it was peacetime and I never experienced any war related violence, the possibility of war was ever present. To this day I hate the sound of our local sirens which call out the volunteer fire force, because to me such sirens mean war. The bottom line is that some of the researchers hypotheses may not have worked out because the children were closer in experience than might appear at first glance. What the author calls repression, I would think may be better described as avoidance: there is quite a collection of different strategies being combined under their label of repression, as they themselves are quick to point out. The research on traumatic memory is certainly highlighting that there are many ways to "forget" or avoid thinking about trauma and these probably carry different "price tags" for the individual and also have varying effectiveness. It will be interesting in the future, as we become better able to theoretically sort out and measure these different strategies, to see how these reflect in dreaming styles. In an unrelated
