Oops, sent this to Jim Clark instead of the list.

> Several list members have suggested that it would be helpful
> (if not essential) for Kitty's student to define the terms
> "mind/body/spirit."  I completely agree and find it fascinating
> that there is a notable lack of agreement on the meaning of
> these terms within the current discussion.
>
> Jim Clark's response suggests that he sees this area as
> "non-natural" and completely lacking in scientific evidence.
> My first reaction to the original post was that this student
> was interested in health psychology, or counseling patients
> with stress, critical illnesses, or chronic pain.  After
> reading some of the responses, I doubted my own assumption
> and searched for the Harvard Mind/Body Institute on the web,
> hoping to find their definition.
>
> The url is: http://www.mindbody.harvard.edu/about_mbmi.htm#4
>
> The following is quoted from that site
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>            "Mission of the Mind/Body Medical Clinic
>
>      Behavioral Medicine is an interdisciplinary field that
>      bridges medicine, nursing, psychology, psychiatry and
>      religion. It highlights the importance of mind/body/spirit
>      therapeutic interactions and utilizes other
>      non-pharmacologic treatments. Working together with other
>      medical disciplines, behavioral medicine emphasizes the
>      importance of individuals taking an active role in their
>      own health care.
>
>      The specific goals of the clinic include:
>         -enabling patients to better manage chronic illness
>         -reducing symptoms
>         -increasing coping skills
>         -modifying adverse lifestyle behaviors
>
>      These goals are accomplished through the application of:
>      relaxation response techniques, nutritional management,
>      exercise and cognitive/behavioral therapies empowering
>      patients to take an active role in their health care,
>      thereby improving the quality of their lives."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This description certainly sounds compatible with clinical
> psychology, and includes a number of non-psych options for
> students to become involved in the field without obtaining a
> graduate degree.  I'm not well versed in the literature, but
> there is a scientific research tradition in this area that has
> nothing to do with non-natural, paranormal, or new age beliefs.
>
> I personally hate the idea of a mind/body distinction--my body
> thinks and my mind acts (and vice versa) as a coherent unity
> (well, on a good day anyway...).  But really folks, if
> psychology does not recognize that thought influences behavior,
> that belief systems are powerful determinants of attitudes and
> behavior, and that stress (interacting with thought and belief
> systems) affects physiological health, we need to seriously
> reconsider the intro texts we use.
>
> All my best,
>
> Pam
>
>    jim clark wrote:
>
> > There are several problems with Mike and Kitty's positions.
> >
> > 1.  The areas in which they and Kitty's student are interested
> > have not been ignored. Psychologists and many others have
> > considered the non-natural speculations about human behaviour and
> > the world, and, although some disagree, have find little if any
> > evidence to support those speculations.  Mike's mention of
> > parapsychology is a good example.  To continue a strong belief in
> > this premise is simply ignoring a wealth of negative evidence.
> > Nor is it the case that people who now speak against these ideas
> > have not considered them and perhaps even read quite widely in
> > the areas.  Exposure to shoddy ideas usually, I would hope, leads
> > to rejection of those ideas.
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Jim
> >

Reply via email to