The "harm" may come from the fact that students (or whoever) will see
this "therapy" as a replacement for something more
scientifically/empirically-based. That's also true for placebo effects
and for faith as well (ask a Christian Scientist).
On Aug 31, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Jean-Marc Perreault wrote:
Hi Marie,
I've really enjoyed the discussion so far. And I would
like to ask you further: What are the possible negative conseqences to
actually engaging in a few sessions of HT? Granted that the HT
practionners do not attempt to "fix" anything major, which is what
they said they would do (or not do, depending how you read it...) I
brought the topic up with the counsellor who is setting the whole
thing up, and in the end, she said: "well, what harm can this possibly
do? In the end, students will end up more relaxed in times of stress
(semester), which can only prove useful. The placebo effect can be
just as good as anything else. And as there is no cost attached,
neither to the students nor the College, then hey!" (I'm restating
what I can recall from our discussion).
Her reply sort of left me wondering, "Hey... maybe she's right.
Placebo effect does work, and if students end up relaxing, then so
much the better"! The place where I still have a hard time is the
distribution of information that makes it look like HT has scientific
backing. The handout sure looks good. Short of going on a crusade to
distribute contradictory information, I'm left wondering what to do
about it. I will certainly bring the topic up n class, but I only
reach so many students.
Another interesting issue (which some of you who work in small places
might relate to) is the fact that the College where I work is very
small, in a small city (22,000 people). Basically, I happen to know
the person in charge of the HT who will be coming up, and she happens
to be a good friend of the counsellor who is setting the whole thing
up. So, how far does one go to rebute indivuduals who are very close
to one's social circle? They are not personal friends, but the typical
6 degrees of separation found in most cities is cut down by a factor
of about 6 around here... Everyone knows everyone through less than 1
person around here. So... short of getting into a situation that will
end up in a feud, what does one do? Logic cannot be used. It's like
faith. How does one argue against it? I know there are review papers
that state that HT is not supported by science, but there are papers
that state it is (I know, you'll say they are not as good as those
stating there is no backing). Nevertheless, it becomes tenuous to make
them apart, especially if one does not have the science background to
tear them apart.
Anyhow, looking forward to the discussion still... This is proving to
be a very interesting situation for me...
Jean-Marc
Marie Helweg-Larsen wrote:
When I teach pseudoscience such as healing touch to my students in
research methods and a first year seminar called "why do people
believe weird things" they are convinced (once they see the evidence)
that it does not work. However, there is always a sizable minority of
students who think that it should still be offered by hospitals (or
other settings such as colleges) because "it probably does no harm"
or "it offers hope". So even when people know that treatments are
bogus they see relatively few costs of promoting bogus treatments. So
you both have to convince people that it doesn't work and that it is
costly to promote such treatments.
Last year I had my first year students write a persuasive essay (one
page, in class) in which they either argued for or against having
astrological charts in the campus paper. Students knew (we discussed
it at length) that astrology is made up (in fact, the roommate of one
of the students was the one who made it up and freely admitted making
it up), The vast majority of students argued that astrology was
harmless fun that carried no consequences. A few students argued that
a college paper should not promote false beliefs (even if it was in
the entertainment section of the paper).
Marie
Gerald Peterson wrote:
Frank LoSchiavo and K. L. Roberts (2005) have utilized
pseudoscientific claims to teach research methods (See Teaching of
Psych 32(3), 177-179 and it sound like you could integrate this
campus event in your class(es. See if you could develop some
criterion, see also what your bio and physics family have to say
(they will often be sadly ignorant about how to test for psych
confounds, but may nevertheless be useful). All in all, an
opportunity to educate the campus community and show the way to
implement more careful thinking/reasoning. Just a thought...GAry
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
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]
========================================================
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
