About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Some people just don’t get Ayn Rand. When she said “emotional vibrations” I never thought for a moment that she was referring to anything but that which is transmitted through the senses. We all use the term and don’t mean anything mystical by it. Why can’t she?

 

)(*)(

 

 


Post 41

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 7:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathaniel Branden has gone in for schlock new-age mysticism.  The LP has amounted to nothing.  The Rothbard / Raimondo libertarians, when forced to choose between their alleged ideals and their desire to suck up to the left, have opted for the latter.  Makes you think the Peikoff / ARI crowd have had more on the ball all these years than we liked to admit.

Peter


Post 42

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter, I didn't know this about Nathaniel. How do you know this?

--Brant


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathaniel Branden has gone in for schlock new-age mysticism
 
What, specifically, are you talking about?


Post 44

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My principal (but not only) source on this has been the recent postings to SOLO, which were extensive and mutually consistent as to the underlying facts.  I can't believe that all those people are conspiring successfully to deceive me.

Peter


Post 45

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter, I haven't read anything here about "schlock new-age mysticism," whatever the heck that is, applied to Nathaniel Branden. I mean, this kind of terminology is vague and unspecific. Now, if you want to call him names do what I would do: *Y&%&*&%^%&*&*^ or %$#&^*&(*(*!!! :-)

--Brant


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What I read (reading the exact same posts here on solo) was that Nathanial Branden was investigating a technique that appeared to be very effective but was not endorsing any mystical explanation for its effectiveness at all. You know that when the real scientific explanation for why it works is discovered NB will be the first the first to endorse it if in fact he's not the person who provides the explanation in the first place.

Peter, I believe you are deceived by your own bias.

Post 47

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have to repeat that I don't believe that Nathaniel Branden properly understands what constitutes scientific proof. But he's no mystic. He does appear to have a scientific alter ego in Walter Foddis, though, which is not to say that Walter is a scientist. The so called "soft sciences" are not science at all, including economics. That does mean that something(s) found therein cannot be scientifically demonstrated or falsified.

--Brant


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re: Branden and thought-field therapy, I'm re-posting here what I posted in the "How to kill a philosophy thread." This seems related to claim that Branden is engaging in "new age mysticism." -- Walter

Branden's initial interest in thought-field therapy (TFT; a form of energy psychology) occurred sometime in the early to mid-80s. Callahan was trying to sell Branden on TFT, but he was quite skeptical of it. Callahan was claiming he could heal traumas with it. So one day Branden told Callahan he was suffering from post-traumatic symptoms that were related to him finding Patrecia (his then wife) dead in their swimming pool. Callahan asked Branden if he could do this TFT tapping protocol on him. Branden was skeptical, but agreed to it. According to Branden, immediately after the tapping, he was then able to visualize the scene of his wife's death without being re-traumatized. From then on, Branden did not experience further post-traumatic symptoms. Essentially this was Branden's first, direct experience with thought-field therapy.

Branden then described a scenario in which he asked an hysterical woman to tap certain areas of her body (presumably the "meridian" points), but did not explain to her why. I believe it was at a public venue. Apparently, others were trying to get the woman to calm down, but nothing was working. Branden described this as a "blind" experiment because she was not told the reasons for the tapping. After tapping on herself, she became very calm. Branden was amazed by this.

So these two experiences got him quite interested in the field. He then began using TFT protocols with clients, who then report back to him that these protocols are helping.

Now I would describe myself a sympathetic skeptic to TFT. My clinical training program is very rigorous about practicing empirically-validated therapy. Although clients who have received TFT claim that it has helped them, there is a severe lack of controlled therapy outcome studies. If I were even to try TFT as a small experiment with a client, there is no doubt I would get severely reprimanded, if not get put on probation.

Examples of studies that TFT needs to prove its empirical worth should include:

1) studies with comparison groups (e.g., TFT vs. cognitive-behavioral therapy, or vs.a waiting list control group),

2) studies in which clients are not told why they are tapping (i.e., blind studies),

3) studies in which "non-meridian" points are tapped (i.e., placebo effect studies), and

4) studies in which TFT components are teased apart (e.g., tapping without imagining that which bothers you vs. tapping with imagining what bothers you) and

5) studies in which the disorder being treated is fairly well defined.

Now this is a start. TFT would need many, many, many such studies before it could reach the status of "empirically validated."

Last time I checked, there are a few studies supporting the efficacy of TFT. However, these studies were for a few specific phobias. I'm not too impressed with this because treating phobias is not difficult anyway. Phobias are easily treated with a cognitive-behavioral method called "exposure" therapy. People are gradually exposed to a feared "object" (e.g., spiders, needle injections) until their anxiety drops significantly. At a certain point (sometimes several weeks; sometimes less) the person no longer feels any fear toward the object.

Anyway, I have not checked lately, but there may be few more studies supporting TFT's efficacy. So it's not to say TFT is all bunkum. It's just that the current evidence for it is limited.

As a related side-bar, I was recently reading therapy outcome research in two different journals showing the powerful therapeutic effects of the therapeutic relationship. When the client connects with the therapist and feels understood, they become hopeful. They then are more likely to follow the therapist's suggestions and it is these clients who tend to fair better in therapy.

This researchs suggests to me that if a client has a very persuasive and understanding therapist, technique is just small curative factor. So therapeutic relationship is something else TFT researchers (and all therapy outcome researchers) need to take into account in their studies.

-Walter



Post 49

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't believe that Nathaniel Branden properly understands what constitutes scientific proof.
 
I'm thinking he very much knows, he didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and is no piker. My impression is that he is more results-oriented, and if he finds something that works (in this case, starting out by seeing it work on himself), he's likely going to add it to the toolbag. He doesn't seem to rule things out on other people's principles (or philosophies, for that matter). I think that's called being open and inquisitive, but don't quote me.  


Post 50

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Uh, okay, Rich.

--Brant


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here, maybe this is more honest: I don't think he gives a shit.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich, Don't sit on the fence - say what you feel!

Post 53

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant opined:

"The so called "soft sciences" are not science at all, including economics. That does mean that something(s) found therein cannot be scientifically demonstrated or falsified."

I would disagree. I believe I, and empirical psychologists in reputable universities, are doing science. Why don't you consider psychology a science? More specifically, how would you describe the scientific method?

Curiously,

Walter

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Walter, I would not disagree that what you are doing is science (or could be), but none of the "soft" sciences are yet scientific, including psychology. Empirical psychology is the only way to get science into the discipline.

The scientific method? Apropos data to hypothesis usually inductively then deductive to implications (more observations plus experiments) then recasting or discarding the original hypothesis if necessary = theory or "scientific law." This last needs to be falsifiable to be valid and it may in fact someday be falsified causing discarding or recasting of the theory. Measurement is needed. I don't see how there is any science without it.

Today, psychology is mostly art and opinions and "what works." The trick with the last is to convert it into the aforementioned data.

I hesitated to post this stuff about the scientific method for I believe you are doing this anyway. Are we having an argument? :-)

--Brant


Post 55

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Brant:

I'm not sure if we're arguing yet. ;-) I agree with your characterization of the scientific method. I also agree there are many ~psychologists~ who don't practice psychology based on scientific premises, but that does not mean psychology as a field of study is not scientific.

Interestingly, there has been much political controversy about this within psychology itself. The charge that psychology was losing its science was the reason why a separate psychological organization--the American Psychological Society (APS)-- formed in 1988 after members split off from the American Psychological Association.

APS's motto: Building a science-first foundation for psychology. Their mission statement: "...to promote, protect, and advance the interests of scientifically oriented psychology in research, application, teaching, and the improvement of human welfare."

-Walter


Post 56

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Walter and Brant, Re posts 53 and 54

I am a clinical psychologist, in practice now for over 25 years.

I was trained in a research oriented "clinical" program which gave me virtually no useful information or clinical skills, but was in love with "research" methods. These methods consisted of correlating outwardly observable behaviors, in hopes of predicting human behavior.

I have always had enormous disagreements with this whole approach:

1. Psychology should be about understanding the "inner" life and how it relates to the rest of existence, not correlating outwardly observable behavior. Its attempt to do this behavior correlating, is what has so often been (rightly) scoffed at by others as a futile attempt to ape a real science like physics.

2. It ignores personal meanings of situations, and can only understand individuals as members of a group.

3. It doesn't acknowledge that individuals have free will, and through their interpretations of events and actions thereupon create their own unique paths through their inner and outer lives.

Now, admittedly, this was a long time ago (over 30 yrs), and I received my Ph.D. from a very behavioral clinical program.

Also, since then, the work of John Gottman on marriage and other relationships has persuaded me that some good work has been done.

Walter, you are in school now, at a different institution (is Donald Meichenbaum there?), and I am curious how you would answer my 3 points above vis a vis the "scientific" psychology you are working with.

Thanks,   Steve Shmurak


Post 57

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 8:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve said:

 These methods consisted of correlating outwardly observable behaviors, in hopes of predicting human behavior.

If you or psychology can not predict human behaviour then you never rise to the level of science.  If I am not misunderstanding you, and you are saying that psychology can't make predictions, then psychology qua science is untenable..  Postdiction is always the realm where pseudoscience lurks.


Post 58

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, everybody is different and everybody is the same. You can predict human behavior but not the behavior, necessarily, of an individual human. Psychotherapy, for instance, will always be the art of psychotherapy, perhaps using some scientific modalities. There is no such thing as group therapy, aside from therapy called that though not, just individual therapy in a group context.

So I think you and Walter are both right, but I'm now going to have to defer to both him and you before I stop knowing what I am talking about.

--Brant




Post 59

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Steve:

Fortunately, psychology has gone back into our heads as a result of the cognitive revolution of the 60s. Behaviorism is pretty much dead. There may be a few die-hards. But we still use behavioral principles for treatment of anxiety disorders, like phobias and panic disorder. So behaviorism was not a total wash. :-)

As to the scientific basis of psychology, much of psychological research is the generating of theory-based hypotheses and testing these predictions. This is not a problem for psychology as a science. The problem lies in the fact there is no single variable to account for any particular behavior. Human behavior tends to have multiple causes, which involve both the person variables (e.g., personality, self-concept, needs) and situation variables. So just doing studies in laboratories limits the situation variables and thus generalizability.

I've been noticing a trend toward longitudinal and "naturalistic" studies. I think this is due to improved technology, as well as the realization that laboratory results are limited in their context. I believe things are looking for psychology as a science!

Also, from what I've seen, personality, self-concept, and self-esteem research is big, as is unconscious motivation. Then the "new kid" on the block--evolutionary psychology--is all about understanding how evolution shaped the mind, which involves, in part, trying to understand our most basic drives and motivations.

If interested, I would encourage you to read contemporary psychological research. There's a lots of good stuff out there.

-Walter

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.