massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Where Does Energy Work Belong?
The comment period for the second draft of the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge ended a week ago. I’ve made comments on both drafts, and I hope you have too.
A number of my own comments were in regard to the amount of energy work-related statements that were included. I don’t think most of it belongs there. Before anyone gets their chakras in a twist at me, let
me state that Healing Touch was the very first class I ever took, back
in 1993. I went on to follow that up with classes in Reiki, polarity,
and a few other energy modalities. I’ve also studied and used Shiatsu
for years. I have in fact in the past taught a lot of Reiki classes
myself, but I’ve decided not to teach it anymore. I blogged that
decision on my FB page a few months ago. Some of these scientific minds
around here are rubbing off on me.
I honor anyone who lays their hands on another, or directs energy at another, with the intent for the highest good to take place, whether that’s to heal, to comfort, or to ease someone’s passing. I don’t have
any objections to energy work, either giving or receiving. I just think
it’s a separate body of knowledge.
Yes, I know that plenty of massage therapists use energy work, not only from my own past experience, but also from spending a few hours surfing through the approved provider pages on the NCB’s website
recently. It appears that there’s more energy-related classes than
hardcore bodywork and/or evidence-based classes. Obviously there’s a
demand, or that wouldn’t be the case. READ MORE.....
Views: 268
Comment
-
Comment by Vlad on March 22, 2010 at 8:29pm
-
"There's me, and Robin, and... that's about it. There used to be a few more, but they're gone. The ones I know have advised me not to waste anymore time here, but I've ignored them - I feel that I have something to add."
I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that Doc has made everyone think.
To be honest, I'm surprised that he hasn't bailed out of here a long time ago and I think there are some that would like to see him leave. I don't. Why is it that people see him as such a threat? He's just one vocal scientist that's involved in research. To me it's like he's shouting his convictions in a hurricane.
Why don't we see Doc as a resource in which to learn from?
He and Robin are VALUABLE RESOURCES for us to gain knowledge about what actually goes in in research. Their discussions on QUAL/QUANT/WSR on a couple of the threads was an example of that.
Doc isn't interested in doing energy research and he's vocal about where he stands on it and why he believes what he does, but so what?
He brought up a good point though. Why aren't there more researchers on this site? There are many other researchers out there and there are some involved in energy research. Where are they? Why hasn't anyone invited an energy (or any other aspect of our profession - there are a lot of modalities, after all) researcher on to this board? I would love to see a thread that has a plethora of researchers on it discussing methodologies and challenges involved in research.
We need to learn from researchers involved in all aspects of our profession and with points of views. It's a pity that more researchers didn't see this site as being inviting to them. His fellow researchers are advising him to back off and it's becoming kind of obvious that researchers aren't really interested in giving much input on any site (the science site is slow too).
That's not cool.
That's the squirrels .02c
-
Comment by Jeanne Riley on March 22, 2010 at 8:02pm
-
Christopher, Good grief. You need to take a time out. I read your posts often and appreciate hearing your perspective, and learning from the knowledge you, and Mike and Laura, and so many others share. But you need to agree to disagree and stop attacking. This is a place to share thoughts, opinions, and knowledge and as a fairly new LMT I truly appreciate the time you take to post and share your experience. But no one is obliged to answer your questions just because you ask them. I think you like a good argument and you ask questions designed to get a rise out of people and that is OK too, but this is getting a little ugly. - Thanks for listening.
-
Comment by Emma Torsey on March 22, 2010 at 7:37pm
-
Come here puppy,come on come here....SLAM ! This puppies not buyin"it!
-
Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on March 22, 2010 at 7:25pm
-
Mike, Darcy, Emma -
I agree with you. That wasn't my most mature moment. But at the same time, I have to ask - how else am I to make my point?
I considered writing a well-reasoned message pointing out how Mike consistently ignores questions and counter arguments that are posted earlier in the thread. But that would just be ignored!
There is a lot of stuff I don't know. A LOT. But something I do know is massage research. I know what has been done and what hasn't been done. I know how research is funded. I know how researchers decide what to do, and what not to do. I know why some researchers do energy work research, and why others do not.
But Mike, I can take my time, and carefully explain this stuff, and you will gloss right past it. You'll say the same stuff, over and over again - you seem to be on the internet 24 hours a day.
Mike, you are clearly a TERRIFIC advocate for massage therapy and related practices. I mean that. You have a kind word for everyone, and you defend their livelihood like a bulldog. I can see that you have a lot of friends and a lot of energy.
As for science and research, frankly, quite a few of your assumptions are wrong. I think I could add something to this conversation, but on the other hand, maybe I can't if the things I have to add will just be ignored. (One point that must be made is that science is NOT advocacy.)
Someone asked me recently why there are hardly any researchers on this site. There's me, and Robin, and... that's about it. There used to be a few more, but they're gone. The ones I know have advised me not to waste anymore time here, but I've ignored them - I feel that I have something to add. But I'm beginning to wonder if they are right. I've got to decide whether this is worth it or not.
Folks - research applied to massage therapy is going to be a double-edged sword. There will be some things that are supported, and that will benefit as a result. But there will also be things that will be refuted (or, in fact, have already been refuted), and that will not benefit. It is ridiculous to say that everything should be researched more - scientifically, that's just not true. It's ridiculous to suggest that what gets researched should be decided democratically - science is not a democratic activity. And so on. I can elaborate on these points - the question is, should I?
May I suggest - and it really is only a suggestion, as you're free to to as you will - that you consider asking how these decisions are made, instead of assuming that you know how they are made? I have no doubt that you know a lot about the profession of massage therapy, but there is quite a bit you could learn about science, and the research of massage therapy.
-
Comment by Darcy Neibaur on March 22, 2010 at 6:05pm
-
I agree this was unnecesary and shows immaturity in my opinion.
-
Comment by Mike Hinkle on March 22, 2010 at 5:42pm
-
The Hinkle Factor would be glad to see you move along to more money and best of wishes along the way.
I never said I knew a lot about massage research. I made that clear along the way. I do, however challege others assesments you have made, as you have said we should. Paying attention, does not mean blind acceptance of the Moyer Factor, which has posted right alongside the Hinkle Factor. When people write me, I answer them.
Stupidity of attacks, like this to belittle, is why so many therapists hope you are serious about moving on.
-
-
I'm abandoning massage therapy research. It's too political, and there's no money in it.
Instead, I'm going to start researching the habits and motivations of persons who post to internet discussions. I even have a theory that I'm going to test, and it is this:
The less a person knows about a subject, the MORE (s)he will post on that subject, and the LESS (s)he will pay attention to those who might actually know about the subject.
Now, to test this theory, I'm going to need measurements, so my first study will be to develop a usable statistic. I'll call it The Hinkle Factor. It is calculated:
( A / B ) * (C + D) = HF
where
A = One's own perceived knowledge of the subject (high #s for higher confidence),
B = One's actual knowledge of the subject (high #s for greater accurate knowledge),
C = The degree to which one ignores true contrary information (high #s for more ignorance)
D = The number of posts one makes on the subject (equivalent to actual # of posts)
Now, how can I go about testing the upper limit of my new statistic...?
-
-
Cheers, Darcy.
Stephen, I tried to get a bit of a discussion going on the directions and dilemmas doc a while back on this thread, but there wans't much interest - if there is one thing that comes from it it's that MT research is in it's infancy. There's an awful lot of research to do!
-
-
Great Video Vlad.
-
Comment by J'nai L. Porter on March 22, 2010 at 12:31pm
-
I specialize in therapeutic massage, which for me means that I use all the tools I have at my mental disposal during every massage.. and I implement energy work into every massage,,,The only time my clients get one specific type of treatment is upon request, or if that is the only form they can receive due to other contraindacations...
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!
Join massage and bodywork professionals