From: lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady)
Subject: Re: Unpleasantness re: inner child discussion
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Summary: Your posting raises are important issues to consider.  
Organization: University of Hawaii (Mathematics Dept)
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:55:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.150451.21431@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <167C4936A.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.013224.19962@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>>lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>>
>>  It claims that the same technique will neutralize traumatic
>>>memories just as quickly, so that PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome)
>>>becomes an easily treatable problem.  
>
>That's a HUGE claim, especially considering the vast variety and
>intensity of traumas, and the long time periods over which PTSD can
>manifest itself.  I hope you take this one with salt.

My hope is that academics and those committed to a scientific point of
view will not make quick judgements on a claim before becoming familiar
with the facts.  I don't know whether in fact the claim that PTSD can be
dealt with facilely is justified or not.  I am convinced, however, that
anyone who investigates the use of the Fast Phobia/Trauma Cure in
connection with PTSD will learn some very valuable things.  This is my
personal opinion, obviously not unbiased, and is certainly not evidence.
I suggest it as an opportunity for scientists to do some important
scientific investigation.  

Since the Fast Phobia/Trauma Cure takes only ten minutes or so, a
practicing therapist can investigate it more informally with his own
clients.  Admittedly, the results of such informal usage won't be
science, but I think the clients will be nonetheless grateful.

>I should point out here that *many* short-term interventions can produce
>positive results of this sort.  Not necessarily in one session, mind
>you, but things like biofeedback and clinical hypnosis (from which NLP 
>is derived, btw, to a large extent: Milton Erickson is the godfather
>--not entirely willingly, I might add -- of NLP) have often achieved
>similar results.
>
>And clinical data is *not* lacking there.

In that case, it would seem that the NLP claims are not so implausible
after all.  When people argue on both sides of the fence like this ("NLP
can't do what it claims to because problems just aren't this simple" and
"We don't need NLP because other things work just as well") I begin to
suspect that the real issue is something other than the arguments being
presented.  

Ericksonian hypnosis, incidentally, is an offshoot of NLP.  Steve
Gilligan was part of the original NLP group at Santa Cruz.  The original
NLP group had a lot conversations with Erickson, who did his best to
teach them his approaches.  However Erickson did not approve of reducing
what he did to recipes and for that reason to the extent that NLP is
Erickson's child I am sure that he was not a totally approving father. 


>FAR more important would be studies that considered questions like:
>
>-- which complaints does NLP (or XYZ) alleviate most successfully?
>
>-- which populations respond best?  Is NLP-success related to
>intelligence?  Age?  Socioeconomic status?  Educational level?  Ethnic
>group?  

I am very pleased that you raise these issues in this newsgroup which is
read by the very academics who are able to carry out this sort of study.
I agree that these are very important questions.  I'm not really
interested in arguing about whether NLPers have been irresponsible in
not investigating them in a serious way.  The point is that the failure
of NLPers to address these questions in a way that is acceptable to the
clinical psychology community has provided an enormous OPPORTUNITY for
academics who have the imagination to recognize it.  Just think of all
the mileage Herbert Benson at Harvard got out of studying a watered-down
version of Transcendental Meditation.  

>Remember: all therapists, and all books about therapy, talk about the
>successes.  How many even give the success RATE?  How many discuss the
>failures at all?

This is an important point.  However, it's also important not to let
statistics be used to bury scientifically important data.  If the success
rate of a particular approach is only 5%, the facile conclusion to be
drawn is that this approach is not really very good.  But the much more
interesting and valuable question is:  What can be learned by looking at
those clients in the 5% where the approach did work?  Can we learn
something from that 5% that will enable us to develop a therapy that will
be more effective?  Or can we find a predictor that will enable us to
identify in advance the type of client that this approach will be
successful with.  

There's also the question of cost/benefit ratio.  If a technique takes
only ten minutes (or, maybe more realistically, thirty when one includes
preliminary conversation and subsequent evaluation) it's worth using even
with a 5% success rate if the alternative is months of therapy.  

--
Lee Lady                                               
Dept of Mathematics                      lady@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu   
University of Hawaii                     lady@uhunix.bitnet
Honolulu, HI  96822