I just want to contribute about $0.015 on this issue. I have done a pretty thorough look at the research on both sides of this issue because I was trying to make a determination as to whether I wanted to put the money out to be trained in EMDR. One of the problems that I had with some of the "anti" research is that they really didn't have equivalent methods used for comparison. I decided to be trained, and I have used EMDR for about 4 years and have had (sometimes) remarkable success with it. I have also found that if the individual going through the therapeutic process doesn't buy into it, it doesn't work as well, or as quickly. Some might raise the placebo issue, but I'm also one of those who says that if all we get in therapy is a placebo effect, so long as the individual's life is better for them, who cares? But, I don't believe it is all placebo and I don't believe that it is all in the eye movement because EMDR therapist use other types of bilateral stimulation (which, it appears to me, is what it is all about). I have also been particularly impressed by some of the imaging research that has been done on the left coast of the US (possibly by Amen, but I don't have it handy now) that shows activity of the brain apparently moving from the left to the right lobes during the application of EMDR.
I think that what has been said about _carefully_ evaluating the evidence on both sides is a very good way to deal with conflicting data. After that, look at the reported success rates of practitioners who use the method. It works for me.
Dr. Bob Wildlbood Lecturer in Psychology Indiana University Kokomo Kokomo, IN 56904-9003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 10, 2004, at 11:26, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Jean-Marc Perreault wrote:
What I want to ask you all is the following: What does one do when there seems to be very contradicting evidence on a topic? (ok, I can already sense Chris Green's steam coming out of his ears... but heck, I need to be able to answer this one, so I'll go ahead anyhow...).
No steam. Just light. :-) First, compare the *quality* of the information provided. Who uses good procedures and statistical-analytic techniques? Whose procedures could have realistically resulted in the opposite conclusion? Simply "counting noses" is rarely adequate in these sorts of situations. Quality outwieghs quantity. Second, examine the *sources* of information. Be suspicious of information coming from persons or groups that have a vested (especially financial) interest in the results coming out in a particular way. Attend especially to information that comes from high-prestige *independent* sources (e.g., APA journals, Science, Nature, etc.). Third, keep in mind (though don't take too terribly literally) Popper's dictum that a single refutation shows a theory to be false while hundreds of apparent confirmations may mean nothing at all. On the other hand, also keep in mind that a simple failure to reject the null hypothesis does not count as a refutation. Check the statistical power of failures to reject the null before regarding them as anything but failures to have employed an adequately sensitive experimental procedure. Fourht, be wary of anything about which there are conflicting results among the remaining highly-believable sources. If this is the case, odds are that something hasn't been worked out properly as yet.
Dr. Bob Wildlbood Lecturer in Psychology Indiana University Kokomo Kokomo, IN 56904-9003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
