I'm rather surprised that folks are surprised/dismayed by a counseling department buying into a therapeutic technique with questionable scientific support. Remember, this is the reason that major players in psychology felt a need to split-off from APA to establish APS. Clinical programs are not big on science--as I know from personal experience while attending the MSW program at the University of Michigan. Therefore, many clinical practitioners aren't particularly aware of the distinction between sound scientific support versus anecdotal and/or authoritative support. The counselors where I teach are terrific but I suspect they would easily buy into this touch therapy--as I suspect counselors around the world would. So, the answer to the question posed is "they" are being trained by professors who haven't been well educated on the nuances of the scientific method. To me, the more interesting question is if there's any way we can bridge the gap between 'us and them' without being condescending or cause unnecessary conflict. I tend to think there's not much hope as the folks who are drawn to science (i.e., this listserv) probably have a whole different mindset before they made that choice than those drawn to the clinical field.
Joan Warmbold Boggs Associate Professor of Psychology Oakton Community College [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Who is training the counselors? Shouldn't they be able to recognize BS? > And, if you need to be hospitalized, think about the training of nurses. > "Forget the defibrillator, I am fixing the patient's energy field." > > > > > Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Psychology & Counseling > University of Central Arkansas > Conway, AR 72035 > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
