Re: Healing Touch for Everyone...

[Scott Lilienfeld]

Although I think that (the always provocative) Paul has a valid a point to make, I also think that the Dodo Bird verdict (the verdict of complete psychotherapy outcome equivalence) has been somewhat overstated by many authors, even for "bona-fide" psychotherapies.  See: http://www.srmhp.org/0101/psychotherapy-equivalence.html for a thoughtful review and critique of the Dodo Bird verdict.  That's not to gainsay Paul's basic point, however, regarding the often underestimated impact of "nonspecific" factors (a complicated epistemic issue in itself that I won't tackle here) in accounting for psychotherapy outcome.  ....Scott Paul Okami wrote: I am very much in the psychological science camp, highly skeptical, etc. etc. However, I feel that some people on this list have dichotomized "scientific" psychotherapy and "quack" psychotherapy as though there were an obvious division based upon sound empirical efficacy and effectiveness outcome research. In my opinion, this dichotomy grossly overstates the evidence in favor of scientific principles involved in psychotherapy endeavors generally (and psychopharmacology for that matter). While the ideas behind such as "healing touch" may be less sophisticated, may appear to make less logical sense, and be less aesthetically pleasing from a scientific perspective than those of the "empirically-supported treatments," I don't see very powerful evidence demonstrating that such as Interpersonal Therapy, Rational Emotive Behavior al Therapy, Cognitive Therapy and (good lord) psychoanalysis are reliably superior in effectiveness in a general sense to "healing touch" and others. The dodo bird effect is not supposed to apply to "non-legitimate" therapies that are "not based upon sound psychological principles." However, it seems to me that these "sound psychological principles" are often arbitrary and far from scientific. Paul Okami ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: Re: Healing Touch for Everyone... Jean-Marc Perreault wrote: Chris Green, this is your time for the spotlight! Please give me ammo for criticism! ;-) Jean-Marc, I have no specific ammo for you. I don't have the time to read up on the "research" related to this dubious practice, among hundreds of others (astrology, psychokinesis, naturopathy, blah, blah, blah...), finding the holes in it. I'm sure you don't either. We all have serious work to do. You might check Quackwatch and the Skeptic for some citations. In any case, the burden of evidence is on the other side. If there were anything to this, there would be the same safety and effectiveness, double-blind clinical trials research on it in the same medical journals as there is for surgery, pharmaceuticals, and all other serious medical treatments. Journals specifically devoted to particular kinds of treatments that can't get the attention of mainstream science are, obviously, suspect from the outset. (Would you trust an "economics" journal published by the Mafia full of articles purporting to show the economic benefits of crime?) When they whip out "equal time" arguments, there is little you can do (except perhaps ask rhetorically if we should give equal time to alchemy, numerology, and phrenology -- actually, this particular practice bears a striking resemblance to Mesmer's "animal magnetism"). Then again, in an age where creation mythologies seem to be on the march in the most powerful (and, until recently, most scientifically-advanced) nation on earth, "healing touch" seems like a minor blip. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-5115 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- 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] -- Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory University 532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322 (404) 727-1125 (phone) (404) 727-0372 (FAX) Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: www.srmhp.org The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]