Scott wrote...
But there's a world of difference between (a) putting a therapy that is
being widely used clinically, such as facilitated communication,
rebirthing, or Therapeutic Touch, to an empirical test (which I firmly and
strongly support) and (b) testing a questionable hypothesis (namely, that
witnessing the birth of an animal during a single videotaped interaction
can ameliorate the symptoms of children with severe and lasting attachment
problems)
OK - I see one reason for our differences of opinion.....
As I mentioned before, I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that
significant exposure to animal husbandry would have a positive effect with
this population. When I said significant exposure, I meant something like
putting the kid on a farm for 6 months working with the goats in all
aspects of their care. I can see how such an experience might build
attachment and responsibility.
What bothers me is that people think this is obviously a stupid
hypothesis. Hey - I am no farm kid - but I have been around animals enough
to believe that they do have a positive effect on people. Why is the
hypothesis considered so obviously absurd?
The problem with the study is that the exposure was not significant - It
does seem obvious that a short video segment is inadequate to address the
hypothesis. But that is a methodological problem. The hypothesis itself
is reasonable - the methods for assessing it are not.
-- Jim
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
