massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

Body Cells Carry Emotional Memory

                      By Boris Prilutsky

I found the theory that body cells carry emotional memories to be a true one. During my 38 years of clinical experience, numerous times I have witnessed the emotional reactions of my patients/clients to soft tissue mobilization. To more clearly explain this phenomenon, I would like to share one of my most interesting clinical experiences with you that support the theory of emotional memory being carried body cells.

Over 20 years ago, I treated one of the world-renowned boxers of the time from a shoulder injury. The right shoulder had a severe sprain/strain case with suspicion of possible rotator cuff tear. As with all such cases, after 24 hours of cold application procedures (cold application must be applied no more than 10-15 minutes and must be repeated every two hours) we started intensive massage therapy on the unaffected side in order to awake vasomotor reflex that will express by increasing blood supply to the injured extremities. I began to follow the treatment protocol for the above-mentioned purposes, starting to mobilize all groups of rotator cuff muscles layer by layer, as well as the anterior, posterior, and middle part of the deltoid muscles. As he was receiving the massage therapy, suddenly this big, tough, extremely strong man started crying, vocalizing sounds like that of a little boy. He was confused and expressed his embarrassment at breaking down in tears.

Being familiar with the theory that body cells carry emotional memory, I suggested to him to cry out whatever this emotional memory was. The sport clinical psychologist was informed of the incident. During his evaluation, this professional athlete, with the help of the psychologist, recovered a memory from his deep subconscious of an event that happened to him when he was eight years old.

Briefly, the story was that the boy's grandfather (his mother's father) once interrupted the constant fight between the boy's father and alcoholic mother; his grandfather attacked his father with a hammer. Afterward, the father was delivered in critical condition to the hospital and the grandfather was arrested. During this period of time, the little boy future boxing champion fell, off his bicycle and hurt his left shoulder. Crying, he came to his mom who was screaming into the phone, and asked her to comfort him because of the pain in his shoulder. His mother reacted in anger, and took his pleas as just whining for attention and she hit him with the phone a few times on this painful shoulder. All these years, on a subconscious level, this man carried difficult baggage of these memories of events related to losing the most important people in his life; his grandfather and father; and related to rejection by his mother. This kind of crying, emotional release tremendously helped this athlete to get rid of this subconscious trauma. This heavy emotional baggage was terribly disturbing and robbed him of a lot of happiness all these years, without him even knowing it existed. My experience has taught me that usually these emotional releases happen with people at the time when we perform massage (including deep tissue mobilization) in the inhibitory regime. Please be aware that emotional release may not be expressed by crying. Many clients may report to you that they have trouble sleeping and experience worry, or they may start shaking during the massage. Some of them will report unusual emotional sensitivity. Please explain to your clients that all above-mentioned reactions are very positive reactions and within the next few days of going through these reactions, they will feel a great deal better. Regarding the boxer whose case I presented to you, he later reported to me that he never thought that this subconscious baggage could destroy the quality and happiness of his life so much. He told me that thanks to this innocent massage therapy on the healthy shoulder, he was able to find peace within himself.

It's reasonable to assume that the memory of the emotional experience is stored somewhere in the brain - the system that is specialized in memory handling and remained inaccessible, as many other memories a human being experiencing during the life. But the shoulder cells hold the bookmark or a memory address of where the actual memories of the incident were stored in the brain. Thus by activating the shoulder cell you triggered the process of loading the content of that remote memory in the active memory, causing the aforementioned reaction.

As you can see from this episode, clinical psychology approach alone wouldn't be sufficient, because of the emotional memories carried by the cells of his body. Presently, I receive professional referrals from clinical psychologists.

Dear colleagues, I would like to encourage you to contact clinical psychologists in your neighborhoods and to offer them your services to incorporate massage therapy in their treatments. The Latin word "doctor" means educator. After being involved in many cases,at US it is clear to me that we should educate not only our clients about the power and importance of massage therapy, but also other health care practitioners.

www.medicalmassage-edu.com

Views: 3233

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Raven.

I was very happy to find your post this morning. If one behaving dishonestly this is dishonestly, when one decides to correct it, one is honest person and  to me it means a lot because one have to overcome a lot of stuff to do it. You did it and I have huge respect to you for it and of course retracting my previous statement that you are dishonest .Thank you again. In my opinion your post  containing important information for discussion that my hope will allow to students and practitioners to learn some useful stuff because phenomenon of negative emotional storages is real and we have to be aware about.

I am at Los Angeles and now is 7:35 AM over here. I have to run to my office. In the evening will reply to your post. Predicting we will have practical and professional discussion.

Have a great day.

Boris



Ravensara Travillian said:

Raven. During all this discussion ,you  didn't offer no explanation, no opinion but posted that I am providing wrong information.constantly distract very important discussion.I mean you posted many many comments, including praising Christopher, and offering him to teach with you classes, but never either of you propose any opinion, including a "bookmarking" alternative definition. If you really practitioner, and loyal to our occupation, then you should answer.Maybe I'm really confusing what is honesty and what is dishonest.therefore let's put a site it for while, and I promise if you will finally answer on questions that I posted to you I will retract it.otherwise really shame on you for all this behavior. I mean ,it.shame on you. I think this is fair and honest  proposal and one who is honest, will realize it , will put a site ego, pride and will correct all at once.

All right, I will do so, and then we will see if you really mean it.

 

My problem with the post is where you say that "body cells carry emotional memory", that this theory is "true", and that cells "bookmark" specific memory locations in the brain.

 

One of the first things we learn in anatomy class is the concept of levels of organization. So when you say "cells" carry, that means that memory is inside each cell. This cannot be true, because--as we all seem to agree--cells don't have the neural machinery to carry memory.

 

If you had said "tissues" rather than "cells", and if you had said "feel like" or "act like" rather than "is true", we would have had no problem. But you did not make it clear that you were using a metaphor. The way you wrote it, it sounded like you said that cells literally contain memories.

 

This is the part at which I get accused of "mere semantics", but on the contrary, this is very important to us and to massage, if we truly want to become a healthcare profession. People trust us if we use knowledge correctly, and we lose their trust if we don't.

 

The state of massage education is such that many people don't get a good education in anatomy, nor in the humanities, so they often cannot tell when we are speaking metaphorically rather than literally. The same is true with our clients. Some can, and some can't, so we have to be very clear, to be inclusive of people, wherever they are. It's more responsibility than just practicing the art of massage, and maybe it's not what we want. But it is an obligation of a healthcare professional, and that is why I take it so seriously.

 

On the "bookmark" thing, again, if you had said clearly "this is an analogy or a model to help you understand how something works, that in reality is much more complex and dynamic", we would have had no problem. But to state it as though that is the literal truth tells any healthcare professional or client who reads this site that massage sticks to an oversimplified and outdated version of neurobiology. If they think we really believe it literally, it reduces their trust in us. We can avoid a world of problems, and keep people's trust in us, if we make it clear when we are speaking literally and when we are using models or analogies or metaphors to communicate a point.

 

Those are the main problems I have with the post. I also have a problem with your name-calling when you lose your temper, and your sandbagging me for answering questions that other people ask me directly. "Dishonest" and "shame on you" is not appropriate professional dialogue, and correcting or refining facts is not an attack on you personally that you have to defend yourself against.

 

I have answered your questions; will you now retract your accusations of dishonesty?



Boris Prilutsky said:

Raven. During all this discussion ,you  didn't offer no explanation, no opinion but posted that I am providing wrong information.constantly distract very important discussion.I mean you posted many many comments, including praising Christopher, and offering him to teach with you classes, but never either of you propose any opinion, including a "bookmarking" alternative definition. If you really practitioner, and loyal to our occupation, then you should answer.Maybe I'm really confusing what is honesty and what is dishonest.therefore let's put a site it for while, and I promise if you will finally answer on questions that I posted to you I will retract it.otherwise really shame on you for all this behavior. I mean ,it.shame on you. I think this is fair and honest  proposal and one who is honest, will realize it , will put a site ego, pride

and will correct all at once.



Ravensara Travillian said:

This is the last time I will say this.

 

Until you retract your accusations of dishonesty, I will have nothing to do with you, no matter how many times you try to get me to engage with you.

 



Boris Prilutsky said:

please answer the questions.

Boris Prilutsky said:

 Raven.Christopher's comment is below.

if I am wrong please correct me.I never comment, that phantom limb syndrome is a  'bookmarks”. In this case limb already do not exist. In my article I described a hands on mobilization of shoulder . When I talked(not in article in comment) about phantom syndrome I have stated that scientists also do not know exactly where this sensitization of pains are stored. Many different opinions on the subject. We just know that this phenomenon exists. In many cases science and especially in  medical fields  know  much less than we are don't know.  As well many phenomenons cannot be explained.

he also said: If Boris (and some other folks on this site) had a little bit more sense about this, not to mention courtesy, he could respond to the things we have said with something like 'oh yes, I think I see your point - but I'm describing how it seems to me.  “

I personally cannot recall that Christopher  proposed/offered any explanation.how he can know about phantom pains?he is above this simple things .

PS. In regards of Gary W Addis I would recommend to take him very seriously because he is Smart and having analytic mind  as well knowledge.


Christopher A. Moyer said: But many of the inferences he makes from that experience are just plain, obviously wrong.  And I don't mean wrong in an esoteric way, but
in basic ways.For example, indicating that limbs store pain or emotion like a bookmark is obviously wrong, as can be shown by phantom limb syndrome, in which there is no 'bookmark.'  There are many other examples just like this, including ones Raven and I have pointed out, all of which get totally ignored.

 



Ravensara Travillian said:

Now, if you wish to get down and dirty, dear, let's get it on. 

 

Oh, dear. I'd really hate to degrade the quality of this discourse.

 

Or, we can continue to politely disagree.  Your choice.

 

You mean like, "don't be an ass"? That kind of polite?

 

 

 



Gary W Addis said:

Ms Travillian, I go by your own words.  A few weeks ago during an earlier generation of this thread you lectured me on useless details of the anatomy of the brain; you listed in detail your academic and professional accomplishments.  Suitably unimpressed, I reminded all once again of your superior attitude.

 

Now, if you wish to get down and dirty, dear, let's get it on. Or, we can continue to politely disagree.  Your choice.

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

Being able to diagram and label every wee feature of the brain gives Raven bragging rights at university cocktail parties. 

 

What on earth are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about my work, and you just make condescending s*** up about what I do.

 

No wonder that--despite your "I'm just an impartial student, got no dog on this fight" schtick--you won't stand up for what's right when Boris resorts to personal insults.

 

"non-judgmental, open mind"--right. Excuse me while I cough up a hairball. 

 

 


Gary W Addis said:



Christopher A. Moyer said:

Clearly, Boris is not referring to  computer code written on a subatomic cellular computer

 

Gary, it is not at all clear what Boris is referring to about 75% of the time.  Part of this, as you point out, is probably because English is not his first language.  And I'd like to point out that none of us, as best I can recall, has ever criticized him for that.

 

But even apart from the language barrier, some of what Boris attempts to communicate doesn't come across clearly because he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I won't for a second challenge his direct experiences in the treatment room - he's got tons of it (as he has reminded us so many times) and as you and others have pointed out, I have none.

 

But many of the inferences he makes from that experience are just plain, obviously wrong.  And I don't mean wrong in an esoteric way, but in basic ways.  For example, indicating that limbs store pain or emotion like a bookmark is obviously wrong, as can be shown by phantom limb syndrome, in which there is no 'bookmark.'  There are many other examples just like this, including ones Raven and I have pointed out, all of which get totally ignored.


Christopher, that there is no limb doesn't make an amputee's pain any less real. I've had the experience of scratching the itch on the sole of an uncle's missing limb--and though his eyes were closed, he responded to the touch! I have no explanation, but I didn't need one; my touch eased an annoying itch, real or imagined, on a fine old gentleman. I suggest you read "The Body Remembers" in the september/october 2010 issue of Massage & Bodywork. As books and articles and countless therapists' personal accounts attest, by whatever label you wish to use, by whatever methodology, the body itself does in fact remember past hurts, especially when those injuries coincided with lasting psychological scarring.

Christopher said:


"If Boris (and some other folks on this site) had a little bit more sense about this, not to mention courtesy, he could respond to the things we have said with something like 'oh yes, I think I see your point - but I'm describing how it seems to me.  Perhaps you could try to tell us why it seems that way even if the underlying cause is known to be different' or something like that.  And then if wanted to disagree with us, that'd be fine too."

 

In other words, your ego is involved. 

 

"Instead, the response we get - everytime, so far - is to bring up his own misunderstandings from long ago threads (Apricot the Wolf), his 39 years clinical experience (how many times must we be hit over the head with that), absolutely baseless criticisms of our work (which it is obvious he is not even familiar with) or of us as individuals (whom he has never met and does not know), and total ignorance of the facts that we take care to establish with reasoning and evidence.  It's completely outrageous, and if I *were* an massage therapist, I'd see it as damaging to the reputation of my profession."

 

You ignore time and again the obvious.  Boris himself has explained repeatedly that he is NOT referring to neurological memory in the cells, merely that, by whatever methodology, the effect is that manipulation of the site of an old injury at time of psychological trauma brings the memory to consciousness, and with it, oftentimes a recurrence of the pain of the original injury.  Boris will correct me if I misunderstand.   Respected experts in the field of massage therapy and bodywork, and experts in related fields such as physical therapy confirm that this phenomena is not hallucinatory.  Tens of millions of people around the globe praise acupuncture and ayurvedic medicine though there is no scientific basis for either that I'm aware of.  The people who benefit from these exotic treatments don't care a whit that you cannot explain them in scientific terms.  It astounds me that you, a psychologist, so eagerly deny the existence of secrets still hidden from human understanding within the mind.  Psychology, after all, relies more on the individual skill of the individual psychologist than it does on an understanding of the anatomy inside the skull.  Being able to diagram and label every wee feature of the brain gives Raven bragging rights at university cocktail parties.  That's information that I as a therapist don't need to know; it is enough that I know the origins and insertions of skeletal muscle and the routes of the nerves and blood vessels that serve them.  I do not need to know the mechanism by which a muscle remembers an old injury;  It is important that I learn to recognize the event, and know how best to handle the situation when it occurs.  In that, it is obvious that Boris will be a better instructor than you the psychologist, Vlad the Denier or Ravensara the cold Clinician.

 

Early man didn't need to have a scientific explanation of gravity; his only concerns was that it worked.

 

 

Thank you for the apology, Boris. I accept it.

Boris Prilutsky said:

Hi Raven.

I was very happy to find your post this morning. If one behaving dishonestly this is dishonestly, when one decides to correct it, one is honest person and  to me it means a lot because one have to overcome a lot of stuff to do it. You did it and I have huge respect to you for it and of course retracting my previous statement that you are dishonest .Thank you again. In my opinion your post  containing important information for discussion that my hope will allow to students and practitioners to learn some useful stuff because phenomenon of negative emotional storages is real and we have to be aware about.

I am at Los Angeles and now is 7:35 AM over here. I have to run to my office. In the evening will reply to your post. Predicting we will have practical and professional discussion.

Have a great day.

Boris



Ravensara Travillian said:

Raven. During all this discussion ,you  didn't offer no explanation, no opinion but posted that I am providing wrong information.constantly distract very important discussion.I mean you posted many many comments, including praising Christopher, and offering him to teach with you classes, but never either of you propose any opinion, including a "bookmarking" alternative definition. If you really practitioner, and loyal to our occupation, then you should answer.Maybe I'm really confusing what is honesty and what is dishonest.therefore let's put a site it for while, and I promise if you will finally answer on questions that I posted to you I will retract it.otherwise really shame on you for all this behavior. I mean ,it.shame on you. I think this is fair and honest  proposal and one who is honest, will realize it , will put a site ego, pride and will correct all at once.

All right, I will do so, and then we will see if you really mean it.

 

My problem with the post is where you say that "body cells carry emotional memory", that this theory is "true", and that cells "bookmark" specific memory locations in the brain.

 

One of the first things we learn in anatomy class is the concept of levels of organization. So when you say "cells" carry, that means that memory is inside each cell. This cannot be true, because--as we all seem to agree--cells don't have the neural machinery to carry memory.

 

If you had said "tissues" rather than "cells", and if you had said "feel like" or "act like" rather than "is true", we would have had no problem. But you did not make it clear that you were using a metaphor. The way you wrote it, it sounded like you said that cells literally contain memories.

 

This is the part at which I get accused of "mere semantics", but on the contrary, this is very important to us and to massage, if we truly want to become a healthcare profession. People trust us if we use knowledge correctly, and we lose their trust if we don't.

 

The state of massage education is such that many people don't get a good education in anatomy, nor in the humanities, so they often cannot tell when we are speaking metaphorically rather than literally. The same is true with our clients. Some can, and some can't, so we have to be very clear, to be inclusive of people, wherever they are. It's more responsibility than just practicing the art of massage, and maybe it's not what we want. But it is an obligation of a healthcare professional, and that is why I take it so seriously.

 

On the "bookmark" thing, again, if you had said clearly "this is an analogy or a model to help you understand how something works, that in reality is much more complex and dynamic", we would have had no problem. But to state it as though that is the literal truth tells any healthcare professional or client who reads this site that massage sticks to an oversimplified and outdated version of neurobiology. If they think we really believe it literally, it reduces their trust in us. We can avoid a world of problems, and keep people's trust in us, if we make it clear when we are speaking literally and when we are using models or analogies or metaphors to communicate a point.

 

Those are the main problems I have with the post. I also have a problem with your name-calling when you lose your temper, and your sandbagging me for answering questions that other people ask me directly. "Dishonest" and "shame on you" is not appropriate professional dialogue, and correcting or refining facts is not an attack on you personally that you have to defend yourself against.

 

I have answered your questions; will you now retract your accusations of dishonesty?



Boris Prilutsky said:

Raven. During all this discussion ,you  didn't offer no explanation, no opinion but posted that I am providing wrong information.constantly distract very important discussion.I mean you posted many many comments, including praising Christopher, and offering him to teach with you classes, but never either of you propose any opinion, including a "bookmarking" alternative definition. If you really practitioner, and loyal to our occupation, then you should answer.Maybe I'm really confusing what is honesty and what is dishonest.therefore let's put a site it for while, and I promise if you will finally answer on questions that I posted to you I will retract it.otherwise really shame on you for all this behavior. I mean ,it.shame on you. I think this is fair and honest  proposal and one who is honest, will realize it , will put a site ego, pride

and will correct all at once.



Ravensara Travillian said:

This is the last time I will say this.

 

Until you retract your accusations of dishonesty, I will have nothing to do with you, no matter how many times you try to get me to engage with you.

 



Boris Prilutsky said:

please answer the questions.

Boris Prilutsky said:

 Raven.Christopher's comment is below.

if I am wrong please correct me.I never comment, that phantom limb syndrome is a  'bookmarks”. In this case limb already do not exist. In my article I described a hands on mobilization of shoulder . When I talked(not in article in comment) about phantom syndrome I have stated that scientists also do not know exactly where this sensitization of pains are stored. Many different opinions on the subject. We just know that this phenomenon exists. In many cases science and especially in  medical fields  know  much less than we are don't know.  As well many phenomenons cannot be explained.

he also said: If Boris (and some other folks on this site) had a little bit more sense about this, not to mention courtesy, he could respond to the things we have said with something like 'oh yes, I think I see your point - but I'm describing how it seems to me.  “

I personally cannot recall that Christopher  proposed/offered any explanation.how he can know about phantom pains?he is above this simple things .

PS. In regards of Gary W Addis I would recommend to take him very seriously because he is Smart and having analytic mind  as well knowledge.


Christopher A. Moyer said: But many of the inferences he makes from that experience are just plain, obviously wrong.  And I don't mean wrong in an esoteric way, but
in basic ways.For example, indicating that limbs store pain or emotion like a bookmark is obviously wrong, as can be shown by phantom limb syndrome, in which there is no 'bookmark.'  There are many other examples just like this, including ones Raven and I have pointed out, all of which get totally ignored.

 



Ravensara Travillian said:

Now, if you wish to get down and dirty, dear, let's get it on. 

 

Oh, dear. I'd really hate to degrade the quality of this discourse.

 

Or, we can continue to politely disagree.  Your choice.

 

You mean like, "don't be an ass"? That kind of polite?

 

 

 



Gary W Addis said:

Ms Travillian, I go by your own words.  A few weeks ago during an earlier generation of this thread you lectured me on useless details of the anatomy of the brain; you listed in detail your academic and professional accomplishments.  Suitably unimpressed, I reminded all once again of your superior attitude.

 

Now, if you wish to get down and dirty, dear, let's get it on. Or, we can continue to politely disagree.  Your choice.

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

Being able to diagram and label every wee feature of the brain gives Raven bragging rights at university cocktail parties. 

 

What on earth are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about my work, and you just make condescending s*** up about what I do.

 

No wonder that--despite your "I'm just an impartial student, got no dog on this fight" schtick--you won't stand up for what's right when Boris resorts to personal insults.

 

"non-judgmental, open mind"--right. Excuse me while I cough up a hairball. 

 

 


Gary W Addis said:



Christopher A. Moyer said:

Clearly, Boris is not referring to  computer code written on a subatomic cellular computer

 

Gary, it is not at all clear what Boris is referring to about 75% of the time.  Part of this, as you point out, is probably because English is not his first language.  And I'd like to point out that none of us, as best I can recall, has ever criticized him for that.

 

But even apart from the language barrier, some of what Boris attempts to communicate doesn't come across clearly because he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I won't for a second challenge his direct experiences in the treatment room - he's got tons of it (as he has reminded us so many times) and as you and others have pointed out, I have none.

 

But many of the inferences he makes from that experience are just plain, obviously wrong.  And I don't mean wrong in an esoteric way, but in basic ways.  For example, indicating that limbs store pain or emotion like a bookmark is obviously wrong, as can be shown by phantom limb syndrome, in which there is no 'bookmark.'  There are many other examples just like this, including ones Raven and I have pointed out, all of which get totally ignored.


Christopher, that there is no limb doesn't make an amputee's pain any less real. I've had the experience of scratching the itch on the sole of an uncle's missing limb--and though his eyes were closed, he responded to the touch! I have no explanation, but I didn't need one; my touch eased an annoying itch, real or imagined, on a fine old gentleman. I suggest you read "The Body Remembers" in the september/october 2010 issue of Massage & Bodywork. As books and articles and countless therapists' personal accounts attest, by whatever label you wish to use, by whatever methodology, the body itself does in fact remember past hurts, especially when those injuries coincided with lasting psychological scarring.

Christopher said:


"If Boris (and some other folks on this site) had a little bit more sense about this, not to mention courtesy, he could respond to the things we have said with something like 'oh yes, I think I see your point - but I'm describing how it seems to me.  Perhaps you could try to tell us why it seems that way even if the underlying cause is known to be different' or something like that.  And then if wanted to disagree with us, that'd be fine too."

 

In other words, your ego is involved. 

 

"Instead, the response we get - everytime, so far - is to bring up his own misunderstandings from long ago threads (Apricot the Wolf), his 39 years clinical experience (how many times must we be hit over the head with that), absolutely baseless criticisms of our work (which it is obvious he is not even familiar with) or of us as individuals (whom he has never met and does not know), and total ignorance of the facts that we take care to establish with reasoning and evidence.  It's completely outrageous, and if I *were* an massage therapist, I'd see it as damaging to the reputation of my profession."

 

You ignore time and again the obvious.  Boris himself has explained repeatedly that he is NOT referring to neurological memory in the cells, merely that, by whatever methodology, the effect is that manipulation of the site of an old injury at time of psychological trauma brings the memory to consciousness, and with it, oftentimes a recurrence of the pain of the original injury.  Boris will correct me if I misunderstand.   Respected experts in the field of massage therapy and bodywork, and experts in related fields such as physical therapy confirm that this phenomena is not hallucinatory.  Tens of millions of people around the globe praise acupuncture and ayurvedic medicine though there is no scientific basis for either that I'm aware of.  The people who benefit from these exotic treatments don't care a whit that you cannot explain them in scientific terms.  It astounds me that you, a psychologist, so eagerly deny the existence of secrets still hidden from human understanding within the mind.  Psychology, after all, relies more on the individual skill of the individual psychologist than it does on an understanding of the anatomy inside the skull.  Being able to diagram and label every wee feature of the brain gives Raven bragging rights at university cocktail parties.  That's information that I as a therapist don't need to know; it is enough that I know the origins and insertions of skeletal muscle and the routes of the nerves and blood vessels that serve them.  I do not need to know the mechanism by which a muscle remembers an old injury;  It is important that I learn to recognize the event, and know how best to handle the situation when it occurs.  In that, it is obvious that Boris will be a better instructor than you the psychologist, Vlad the Denier or Ravensara the cold Clinician.

 

Early man didn't need to have a scientific explanation of gravity; his only concerns was that it worked.

 

 

Now, either go away or continue to try to convince countless authors, educators and therapists in the fields of both psychology and bodywork that you know more about everything than they do.  As for me, my midterms are approaching and I need to study a half hour or so per day to maintain my 4.0 GPA.  If bored, I may check back in with you in a few days.

Sincerely,

== Gary

 

This may surprise you, but I don't take directives from you, sincere or otherwise.

WARNING: Here comes the obligatory, placating, call-for-civility post from the moderator...

Boris, thank you for bring up such a HOT topic! This is a fascinating and worthwhile line of discussion. I wonder if the tone might have been different had your title contained a question mark at the end. But it's your post, so you get to post it however you want. And it is a public post, so you can expect people will have opinions about it. That's a good thing!

 

Chris, thank you for keeping us on our toes and letting no one make a statement that represents our truth vs. the proven Truth. Of course you're in the midst of a passionate group of people who experience truth and Truth on a daily basis in their practice, so it's always going to be a slippery slope up for interpretation. Nonetheless, thanks for keeping us grounded, and thanks for joining us on this forum. Your perspective is important here.

 

Gary, good luck on your midterms!

 

Raven, all of your comments are appreciated--well, by me anyway. ;-> I look forward to your new thread. And regarding the new thread...

 

To everyone in all the land, please bear in mind the distinction between differing opinions and character attacks. A little respect amongst colleagues goes a long way, and just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you personally are under attack. A bottom line we lose sight of: We're all in this massage thing together, we all care about the profession, we all believe passionately in our work, blah blah blah you know what I'm saying. Disagreements are necessary for an evolving profession; be aware when you're falling into dogmatic thinking. Be disciplined before hitting the "Add Reply" button.

 

White light to all--whatever you perceive that white light to be (Christopher, shiny bleeker images to you)!

Christopher: It appears to me that you feel free to judge others by standards that you fail to meet yourself.
1. Amused by your evasive comment, "scare quotes". FYI - unlike in what the general public considers "hard" sciences like engineering, chemistry, etc, psychological principles/practices are not generally accepted worldwide as being supported by complete and proven scientific explanations of invariable cause and effect mechanisms. I suspect the main reasons for this are:
a. There is little general agreement among content areas (cognitive, developmental, social, etc.)
b. The drive for individual recognition and theory development inhibits cumulative advance.
c. The different content areas lack common organizing principles and metaphors.

2. Possibly you would explain to us how your primary academic focus qualifies you to comment as an expert in the topic at hand?

3. Am I wrong to recall you claimed Michael Tschakovsky's massage protocol was valid and supported his conclusions regarding the benefits of post event massage? To refresh your memory, this is the NYTimes link as I cannot spend the time to find your online support of his fatally flawed study protocol: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/phys-ed-does-massage-help-...

4. Interesting that you claim the expertise to decide what is right or wrong in "mind-body processes". If you had advanced degrees in biochemistry, kinesiology and neurophysiology as well as your psychology degree, and provided publicly accessible links to generally accepted peer-reviewed research finding to support your opinions, I would be more likely to take your criticisms/opinions seriously.

5. Since you accept that you have no control over others, you might also accept that sad as it may seem to you; To me as a non-academic, Candice Pert's credentials in her field appear to be stronger than your own in your field. Additionally, I respectfully ask/suggest you might read the two books that I cited and then provide your "expert" opinions regarding their author's credibility.



Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Noel.

 

Chrisopher - From your webpage: http://www.uwstout.edu/faculty/moyerc/index.cfm  it appears that your focus is on:  "how MT can be used as an effective treatment for reducing anxiety and depression, and how the findings from MT research can improve our understanding of the social, physiological, behavioral, and cognitive processes that influence human emotion."  

 

Yes, that's a very brief, one-sentence description of my primary focus.

 

Therefore, I find it curious that you as a Ph.D. in psychology (a field not generally recognized as a "hard" science) feel qualified to publicly "validate" and "invalidate"

 

What's with the scare quotes? 

 

clinical massage practice protocols

 

When have I ever invalidated or validated a massage therapy protocol?  To date I have never offered an opinion on the way massage therapy should be performed.  That's a flat-out erroneous statement.

 

as well as demand that non academics meet your standards for providing bibliographical references supporting their findings and opinions.

 

I don't demand anything, Noel.  I have no control over people.  From time to time on this site I've pointed out when someone has got something seriously wrong.  I limit this to things I know about.  I never get involved in discussions of specific massage strokes or protocols, running a massage therapy clinic, and the like because I don't know anything about those things.  If I happen to see or already be involved in a discussion that has got something about mind-body processes totally wrong, then I point it out.  And when someone objects to that - almost never with evidence, usually just with bluster - sometimes I continue.

 

Since you clearly feel qualified to challenge experienced clinicians working in fields in which it appears you have no professional training or experience, I wonder if you are prepared to publicly state that Candace B. Pert, Ph.D.'s book "Molecules of Emotion, The science behind mind-body medicine" C 1997, David S. Butler's book "The Sensitive Nervous System" C 2000, and "Trauma and the Body, A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy" edited by Daniel J. Siegel, M.D. C 2006 don't meet your standards for reference or support the use of non-scientific language when experienced clinical massage practitioners discuss what can oftentimes be clinically significant cognitive & emotional effects of massage.

 

I have no knowledge of the latter two books, and so I have no opinion on them.  But I actually have read Pert's book, and I've already offered my opinion of it on this very site.  The first half of the book is a very interesting autobiography and a behind-the-scenes account of working in the biological sciences.  And at one time Pert was doing real top-level science.  The second half of the book is mostly nonsense, which is why no working biologists are using it to guide their work.  So sure, I'm prepared to "publicly state" that Pert's book doesn't "meet your standards for reference or support the use of non-scientific language when experienced clinical massage practitioners discuss what can oftentimes be clinically significant cognitive & emotional effects of massage."

 

If books like Pert's are what pass for good sources of information on the workings of the body and mind, that's genuinely sad.

Yea this thread is getting too intense and hard to follow now..Its all interesting though..But only interesting....My approach to massage is much simpler then most therapists in here...Regardless of whatever problem or presenting symptom a client comes in with..I just rub , look for sore spots  and try to eliminate them with various massage techniques..It works more often then not..Sometimes  miraculously so.  Anyway, I dont wanna get emotionally involved in this thread anymore.. I can feel my shoulders tightening up.. lol  .. Peace to you all, Gordon

Ravensara Travillian said:

I'm going to start a new discussion on this, Gordon, because I think there's some important ideas there. But I've been burnt enough on this thread by answering questions that people have posed and then Boris loses it and starts with the accusations of dishonesty, so I'm going to take it off his thread and start a new one in order to prevent that from happening again.

 

Don't worry; we won't be arguing. I'll be presenting some facts for your consideration, and you can do as you please with them. If you don't agree, then you can just let it go--I won't be pursuing it anymore today.

 

Edited to add: just got massively busy; will get back to this later in a new thread.

Hi Lara.

Thank you very much for post. I do take some responsibilities for so-called “hot” discussions. And this wasn't because of my article title but because like you said , “except disagreements “. Disagreements means  that if you have different point of view  you represent it , and not just  telling “wrong ““not acceptable  ect“ but at the time not offering opinion, definitions ect. I called this not discussion by destruction s.As you stated the topic is important and therefore on my site will be not responsible to leave members in this state , therefore I did continue to demand. The very good news  is that I and Raven finally understood what members expected from us, and today  we will continue professional and practical discussion.

Speaking on agreements and disagreements. I really disagree with you in regards of this sentence from your post: Chris, thank you for keeping us on our toes and letting no one make a statement that represents our truth vs. the proven Truth.” Forgive my lack of my English but I don't understand meaning of” keeping us on our toes” most likely this kind of slang.  but:” represents our truth vs. the proven Truth” this I can discuss. One representing something no matter what, if one  offering opinion. But If one only telling how all it is wrong, and criticizing whatever possible and losing no opportunity to do so, one representing no either” our truth” as well “no the proven Truth.” Just an opinion.

Best wishes.

Boris



Lara Evans Bracciante said:

WARNING: Here comes the obligatory, placating, call-for-civility post from the moderator...

Boris, thank you for bring up such a HOT topic! This is a fascinating and worthwhile line of discussion. I wonder if the tone might have been different had your title contained a question mark at the end. But it's your post, so you get to post it however you want. And it is a public post, so you can expect people will have opinions about it. That's a good thing!

 

Chris, thank you for keeping us on our toes and letting no one make a statement that represents our truth vs. the proven Truth. Of course you're in the midst of a passionate group of people who experience truth and Truth on a daily basis in their practice, so it's always going to be a slippery slope up for interpretation. Nonetheless, thanks for keeping us grounded, and thanks for joining us on this forum. Your perspective is important here.

 

Gary, good luck on your midterms!

 

Raven, all of your comments are appreciated--well, by me anyway. ;-> I look forward to your new thread. And regarding the new thread...

 

To everyone in all the land, please bear in mind the distinction between differing opinions and character attacks. A little respect amongst colleagues goes a long way, and just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you personally are under attack. A bottom line we lose sight of: We're all in this massage thing together, we all care about the profession, we all believe passionately in our work, blah blah blah you know what I'm saying. Disagreements are necessary for an evolving profession; be aware when you're falling into dogmatic thinking. Be disciplined before hitting the "Add Reply" button.

 

White light to all--whatever you perceive that white light to be (Christopher, shiny bleeker images to you)!

Hi Raven.

pleasure is mine and I mean it.most likely like you and most of others,I do enjoy peaceful relationships and even if we will agree or disagree on professional level.at this time  do not see too many disagreements butI already see very important clarifications. I am at lunch break now and will be back home in four hours. Looking for  beautiful ,productive, discussion that in the end members will appreciate.BTW.in the evening 1st I promise to answer to Christopher and will do it. Maybe our discussion because of it will delay. I hope you will understand.


Have a great day

Boris

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

Thank you for the apology, Boris. I accept it.

Boris Prilutsky said:

Hi Raven.

I was very happy to find your post this morning. If one behaving dishonestly this is dishonestly, when one decides to correct it, one is honest person and  to me it means a lot because one have to overcome a lot of stuff to do it. You did it and I have huge respect to you for it and of course retracting my previous statement that you are dishonest .Thank you again. In my opinion your post  containing important information for discussion that my hope will allow to students and practitioners to learn some useful stuff because phenomenon of negative emotional storages is real and we have to be aware about.

I am at Los Angeles and now is 7:35 AM over here. I have to run to my office. In the evening will reply to your post. Predicting we will have practical and professional discussion.

Have a great day.

Boris



Ravensara Travillian said:

Raven. During all this discussion ,you  didn't offer no explanation, no opinion but posted that I am providing wrong information.constantly distract very important discussion.I mean you posted many many comments, including praising Christopher, and offering him to teach with you classes, but never either of you propose any opinion, including a "bookmarking" alternative definition. If you really practitioner, and loyal to our occupation, then you should answer.Maybe I'm really confusing what is honesty and what is dishonest.therefore let's put a site it for while, and I promise if you will finally answer on questions that I posted to you I will retract it.otherwise really shame on you for all this behavior. I mean ,it.shame on you. I think this is fair and honest  proposal and one who is honest, will realize it , will put a site ego, pride and will correct all at once.

All right, I will do so, and then we will see if you really mean it.

 

My problem with the post is where you say that "body cells carry emotional memory", that this theory is "true", and that cells "bookmark" specific memory locations in the brain.

 

One of the first things we learn in anatomy class is the concept of levels of organization. So when you say "cells" carry, that means that memory is inside each cell. This cannot be true, because--as we all seem to agree--cells don't have the neural machinery to carry memory.

 

If you had said "tissues" rather than "cells", and if you had said "feel like" or "act like" rather than "is true", we would have had no problem. But you did not make it clear that you were using a metaphor. The way you wrote it, it sounded like you said that cells literally contain memories.

 

This is the part at which I get accused of "mere semantics", but on the contrary, this is very important to us and to massage, if we truly want to become a healthcare profession. People trust us if we use knowledge correctly, and we lose their trust if we don't.

 

The state of massage education is such that many people don't get a good education in anatomy, nor in the humanities, so they often cannot tell when we are speaking metaphorically rather than literally. The same is true with our clients. Some can, and some can't, so we have to be very clear, to be inclusive of people, wherever they are. It's more responsibility than just practicing the art of massage, and maybe it's not what we want. But it is an obligation of a healthcare professional, and that is why I take it so seriously.

 

On the "bookmark" thing, again, if you had said clearly "this is an analogy or a model to help you understand how something works, that in reality is much more complex and dynamic", we would have had no problem. But to state it as though that is the literal truth tells any healthcare professional or client who reads this site that massage sticks to an oversimplified and outdated version of neurobiology. If they think we really believe it literally, it reduces their trust in us. We can avoid a world of problems, and keep people's trust in us, if we make it clear when we are speaking literally and when we are using models or analogies or metaphors to communicate a point.

 

Those are the main problems I have with the post. I also have a problem with your name-calling when you lose your temper, and your sandbagging me for answering questions that other people ask me directly. "Dishonest" and "shame on you" is not appropriate professional dialogue, and correcting or refining facts is not an attack on you personally that you have to defend yourself against.

 

I have answered your questions; will you now retract your accusations of dishonesty?



Boris Prilutsky said:

Raven. During all this discussion ,you  didn't offer no explanation, no opinion but posted that I am providing wrong information.constantly distract very important discussion.I mean you posted many many comments, including praising Christopher, and offering him to teach with you classes, but never either of you propose any opinion, including a "bookmarking" alternative definition. If you really practitioner, and loyal to our occupation, then you should answer.Maybe I'm really confusing what is honesty and what is dishonest.therefore let's put a site it for while, and I promise if you will finally answer on questions that I posted to you I will retract it.otherwise really shame on you for all this behavior. I mean ,it.shame on you. I think this is fair and honest  proposal and one who is honest, will realize it , will put a site ego, pride

and will correct all at once.



Ravensara Travillian said:

This is the last time I will say this.

 

Until you retract your accusations of dishonesty, I will have nothing to do with you, no matter how many times you try to get me to engage with you.

 



Boris Prilutsky said:

please answer the questions.

Boris Prilutsky said:

 Raven.Christopher's comment is below.

if I am wrong please correct me.I never comment, that phantom limb syndrome is a  'bookmarks”. In this case limb already do not exist. In my article I described a hands on mobilization of shoulder . When I talked(not in article in comment) about phantom syndrome I have stated that scientists also do not know exactly where this sensitization of pains are stored. Many different opinions on the subject. We just know that this phenomenon exists. In many cases science and especially in  medical fields  know  much less than we are don't know.  As well many phenomenons cannot be explained.

he also said: If Boris (and some other folks on this site) had a little bit more sense about this, not to mention courtesy, he could respond to the things we have said with something like 'oh yes, I think I see your point - but I'm describing how it seems to me.  “

I personally cannot recall that Christopher  proposed/offered any explanation.how he can know about phantom pains?he is above this simple things .

PS. In regards of Gary W Addis I would recommend to take him very seriously because he is Smart and having analytic mind  as well knowledge.


Christopher A. Moyer said: But many of the inferences he makes from that experience are just plain, obviously wrong.  And I don't mean wrong in an esoteric way, but
in basic ways.For example, indicating that limbs store pain or emotion like a bookmark is obviously wrong, as can be shown by phantom limb syndrome, in which there is no 'bookmark.'  There are many other examples just like this, including ones Raven and I have pointed out, all of which get totally ignored.

 



Ravensara Travillian said:

Now, if you wish to get down and dirty, dear, let's get it on. 

 

Oh, dear. I'd really hate to degrade the quality of this discourse.

 

Or, we can continue to politely disagree.  Your choice.

 

You mean like, "don't be an ass"? That kind of polite?

 

 

 



Gary W Addis said:

Ms Travillian, I go by your own words.  A few weeks ago during an earlier generation of this thread you lectured me on useless details of the anatomy of the brain; you listed in detail your academic and professional accomplishments.  Suitably unimpressed, I reminded all once again of your superior attitude.

 

Now, if you wish to get down and dirty, dear, let's get it on. Or, we can continue to politely disagree.  Your choice.

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

Being able to diagram and label every wee feature of the brain gives Raven bragging rights at university cocktail parties. 

 

What on earth are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about my work, and you just make condescending s*** up about what I do.

 

No wonder that--despite your "I'm just an impartial student, got no dog on this fight" schtick--you won't stand up for what's right when Boris resorts to personal insults.

 

"non-judgmental, open mind"--right. Excuse me while I cough up a hairball. 

 

 


Gary W Addis said:



Christopher A. Moyer said:

Clearly, Boris is not referring to  computer code written on a subatomic cellular computer

 

Gary, it is not at all clear what Boris is referring to about 75% of the time.  Part of this, as you point out, is probably because English is not his first language.  And I'd like to point out that none of us, as best I can recall, has ever criticized him for that.

 

But even apart from the language barrier, some of what Boris attempts to communicate doesn't come across clearly because he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I won't for a second challenge his direct experiences in the treatment room - he's got tons of it (as he has reminded us so many times) and as you and others have pointed out, I have none.

 

But many of the inferences he makes from that experience are just plain, obviously wrong.  And I don't mean wrong in an esoteric way, but in basic ways.  For example, indicating that limbs store pain or emotion like a bookmark is obviously wrong, as can be shown by phantom limb syndrome, in which there is no 'bookmark.'  There are many other examples just like this, including ones Raven and I have pointed out, all of which get totally ignored.


Christopher, that there is no limb doesn't make an amputee's pain any less real. I've had the experience of scratching the itch on the sole of an uncle's missing limb--and though his eyes were closed, he responded to the touch! I have no explanation, but I didn't need one; my touch eased an annoying itch, real or imagined, on a fine old gentleman. I suggest you read "The Body Remembers" in the september/october 2010 issue of Massage & Bodywork. As books and articles and countless therapists' personal accounts attest, by whatever label you wish to use, by whatever methodology, the body itself does in fact remember past hurts, especially when those injuries coincided with lasting psychological scarring.

Christopher said:


"If Boris (and some other folks on this site) had a little bit more sense about this, not to mention courtesy, he could respond to the things we have said with something like 'oh yes, I think I see your point - but I'm describing how it seems to me.  Perhaps you could try to tell us why it seems that way even if the underlying cause is known to be different' or something like that.  And then if wanted to disagree with us, that'd be fine too."

 

In other words, your ego is involved. 

 

"Instead, the response we get - everytime, so far - is to bring up his own misunderstandings from long ago threads (Apricot the Wolf), his 39 years clinical experience (how many times must we be hit over the head with that), absolutely baseless criticisms of our work (which it is obvious he is not even familiar with) or of us as individuals (whom he has never met and does not know), and total ignorance of the facts that we take care to establish with reasoning and evidence.  It's completely outrageous, and if I *were* an massage therapist, I'd see it as damaging to the reputation of my profession."

 

You ignore time and again the obvious.  Boris himself has explained repeatedly that he is NOT referring to neurological memory in the cells, merely that, by whatever methodology, the effect is that manipulation of the site of an old injury at time of psychological trauma brings the memory to consciousness, and with it, oftentimes a recurrence of the pain of the original injury.  Boris will correct me if I misunderstand.   Respected experts in the field of massage therapy and bodywork, and experts in related fields such as physical therapy confirm that this phenomena is not hallucinatory.  Tens of millions of people around the globe praise acupuncture and ayurvedic medicine though there is no scientific basis for either that I'm aware of.  The people who benefit from these exotic treatments don't care a whit that you cannot explain them in scientific terms.  It astounds me that you, a psychologist, so eagerly deny the existence of secrets still hidden from human understanding within the mind.  Psychology, after all, relies more on the individual skill of the individual psychologist than it does on an understanding of the anatomy inside the skull.  Being able to diagram and label every wee feature of the brain gives Raven bragging rights at university cocktail parties.  That's information that I as a therapist don't need to know; it is enough that I know the origins and insertions of skeletal muscle and the routes of the nerves and blood vessels that serve them.  I do not need to know the mechanism by which a muscle remembers an old injury;  It is important that I learn to recognize the event, and know how best to handle the situation when it occurs.  In that, it is obvious that Boris will be a better instructor than you the psychologist, Vlad the Denier or Ravensara the cold Clinician.

 

Early man didn't need to have a scientific explanation of gravity; his only concerns was that it worked.

 

 

I don't really know what exactly"Dude" means but guessing that this is nice compliment. you said :" Dude you can't even keep straight who is speaking with you." my apology for mistake, but style of Vlad's writing is practically exactly like yours.also no Vlad's last name was offered ever and no picture. But in any case,I will try to keep straight.
Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi  Christopher. you  wrote:"but if 3 lines had been changed, all this could have been avoided. "
can you please copy and paste this 3 lines .thanks

 

Dude, you can't even keep straight who is speaking with you.  I didn't write that.

 

But now that we're talking, allow me to concur with Raven - your consistent labeling of her as dishonest is disrespectful and outrageous, doubly so when you criticize her for the very things you do over and over again which violate the guidelines for this forum.

I don't really know what exactly"Dude" means but guessing that this is nice compliment.

 

More or less.  It's definitely not bad!  It's just a very casual way to refer to a guy.

 

Understood about the mixup between me and Vlad, and glad to see you and Raven are on track for a more productive exchange.

Hi Noel.

 

Christopher: It appears to me that you feel free to judge others by standards that you fail to meet yourself.
1. Amused by your evasive comment, "scare quotes".

 

It was not evasive.  Scare quotes are an indication that the person using them hasn't defined their terms or is using terms that are not even able to be accurately defined.  "Hard" science is a good example of this - it's a casual concept with no precise definition.  Further, it isn't relevant to the topic at hand.  I could be a rodeo clown, but if the information I'm presenting is backed by evidence, that's all that matters.  That's the approach that defines science.

 

FYI - unlike in what the general public considers "hard" sciences like engineering, chemistry, etc,

 

This illustrates my point.  I'm not concerned with what the "general public considers" when it comes to scientific matters.  And by the way, engineering isn't itself a science, though it is certainly based on scientific knowledge.  It uses the sciences of physics, chemistry, materials science, and mathematics (some consider that last one to be a science, and some do not) to create things, but it isn’t itself concerned with uncovering truths about nature.

 

psychological principles/practices are not generally accepted worldwide as being supported by complete and proven scientific explanations of invariable cause and effect mechanisms.


That is certainly a criticism that gets leveled at it, but I’m not certain it stands up to scrutiny.  Yes, there is much in the history of psychology that is unscientific, and that is what most casual observers are familiar with.  Most people are not familiar with the long history of psychophysics and with the very robust findings in much of experimental psychology, however.

 

 I suspect the main reasons for this are:
a. There is little general agreement among content areas (cognitive, developmental, social, etc.)
b. The drive for individual recognition and theory development inhibits cumulative advance.
c. The different content areas lack common organizing principles and metaphors.


These problems do crop up.  On the other hand, there is very good data to show that psychology is in fact a ‘hub science,’ meaning it is one of the major branches around which other scientific disciplines are organized.  An excellent brief description of this (with data) is presented here.

 

Ultimately, whether something is a science or not comes down to the methods that are being employed.


2. Possibly you would explain to us how your primary academic focus qualifies you to comment as an expert in the topic at hand?


I am dually trained as both a clinician and as a psychological research; my Ph.D. program was specifically a scientist-practitioner program.  I’ve been doing massage therapy research since college, and my master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation were scientific studies on the topic of massage therapy.  I’ve published numerous studies since then.

 

I’ve worked in treatment clinics, in my own massage therapy laboratory, in psychophysiological laboratories, and in one of the world’s very first optical brain imaging laboratories.

 

Closer to the topic of this conversation, emotion and emotional processes are central to psychology, and so I have studied these in some detail.  I’m familiar with James-Lange theory, Cannon-Bard theory, and social-cognitive models such as Schachter-Singer theory, all of which have relevance to the present discussion (but curiously, none of which have been mentioned…).  I spend numerous hours every month reading the latest scientific publications on these topics. There’s much more but I’d rather not go on and on.

 

I don’t know whether any of that satisfies you or not, and I only answers that because you asked directly.  I’m not in the habit of trying to list my qualifications in this way, as it is antithetical to the way we usually do things in science.  Generally speaking, my colleagues don’t care about any of that – they care about the data.  Either you have data to support your hypotheses, or you don’t.  That’s all that matters. 

3. Am I wrong to recall you claimed Michael Tschakovsky's massage protocol was valid and supported his conclusions regarding the benefits of post event massage? To refresh your memory, this is the NYTimes link as I cannot spend the time to find your online support of his fatally flawed study protocol: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/phys-ed-does-massage-help-...

No, you’re not wrong.  It’s your opinion that it was fatally flawed, which is beside the fact that this has nothing to do with the present discussion.


4. Interesting that you claim the expertise to decide what is right or wrong in "mind-body processes". If you had advanced degrees in biochemistry, kinesiology and neurophysiology as well as your psychology degree, and provided publicly accessible links to generally accepted peer-reviewed research finding to support your opinions, I would be more likely to take your criticisms/opinions seriously.

 

Noel, how do you know what I have training in?  And why are you so concerned with authority as the source of knowledge?

And if you don’t want to take my criticisms seriously, then just don’t.

5. Since you accept that you have no control over others, you might also accept that sad as it may seem to you; To me as a non-academic, Candice Pert's credentials in her field appear to be stronger than your own in your field.


If what you are specifically saying is, Candace Pert was a more accomplished biochemist than I am a psychologist, then I have no problem agreeing with you.  I don’t see the relevance, though.

 

I’ve already acknowledged that CP had a stellar scientific career in her field.  She discovered the opiate receptor, which was a major accomplishment.  It doesn’t follow that she is an expert on emotions, or on consciousness – she could be or she could not be, but it doesn’t automatically follow.  And in fact we don’t have to speculate – her writings on those topics are absurd to people who actually do know something about those topics.  (And yes, I include myself in that latter group.)  One does not even have to be much of an expert on those topics to find the gaping holes in her theories on those topics - a good undergraduate can do it - and this is why NOBODY working on the science of emotions or consciousness draws on her ideas on those topics.  You can easily check that.  She stopped doing science a long time ago.

 

 Additionally, I respectfully ask/suggest you might read the two books that I cited and then provide your "expert" opinions regarding their author's credibility.

 

I'm going to assume that those scare quotes were just an oversight. 

 

Why are you concerned with the credibility of the authors?  That’s not important.  You're placing way too much importance on authority.  The compatibility of the theories and ideas with prior knowledge, and the extent to which they can be supported with data, are what really count.

Note that "dude" can have many shades of meaning, too:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMSSe7cOvA


Christopher A. Moyer said:

I don't really know what exactly"Dude" means but guessing that this is nice compliment.

 

More or less.  It's definitely not bad!  It's just a very casual way to refer to a guy.

 

Understood about the mixup between me and Vlad, and glad to see you and Raven are on track for a more productive exchange.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by Lara Evans Bracciante.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service