> I agree with Peter Harzem's sensible suggestion that it's time to give > this topic a rest. I think I now understand the underlying basis of my > disagreement with Jim Guinee. It's that he thinks that assertions based > on "experience" are science, and that belief trumps evidence.
I never said that. You go ahead and mischaracterize my beliefs and opinions, apparently you are left to distortion now that your precious data has been trampled and found lacking. I'm not sure what the enormous objection is to utilizing, in a modified fashion, a theory that seem to have some utility, in the absence of data. Should we not look for data? yes, Kubler-Ross' theory should continued to be held to the test. No doubt like any other theory, it will never prove to be so simple. In contrast to your inaccurate remarks, I have continually maintained K-R might be useful, but I don't find it to be "dogma." I find some usefulness in these stages, because people who seek therapy from complicated grief are often "stuck" in one of these "stages," or what some would call an "emotional state." After all, it makes sense. If you're not able to move on with your life several years later, then likely you are stuck in the grieving process. What I do is to find out the source of being stuck, and attempt to help the grieved move forward. How silly of me...all this time I should be asking them to be put on pause while we wait for someone to rigorously test them so I can get the green light to help them. Good luck with THAT...rigorously examining people in the very throes of grief. I am sure they will be glad to assist you in building a new theory that will lift grief counselors out of the imprecise touchy-feely grasping LOL Jim G --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
