Pseudoscience and Therapy

[Guest guest]

Roland A. Carlstedt, a regular contributor to the SPORTPSY discussion list

very kindly gave me permission to post a copy of his recent letter to that

group.

Rcarlstedt@... wrote:

<....... we must be very cautious when citing, believing, or deferring to

" Relevant Authorities, " and whenever

engaging (therapeutic) interventions. If you want to talk ethics,

PRACTITIONERS should be professionally obligated to mention that an

intervention may not work, that even if it does we do not really know what or

how something WORKS, let alone are able to replicate, control, or monitor the

effects of an intervention

longitudinally and only can suspect or assume an intervention will affect

performance (in a very aspecific manner at best).

The failure to make such clear to clients could also be considered unethical

and make it untenable to criticize persons practicing outside the arms of the

self-annointed guilds " regulating " the field (the RELEVANT AUTHORITIES).

These authorities in their zest to establish models for practice often forget

that they, the AUTHORITY, essentially continue to perpetuate many myths and

scientific half-truths under the guise of the TRUTH.

One way to shake up the AUTHORITIES is to " invent " a new intervention.

Francis Shapiro and her EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing)

comes to mind as an example of how a person with a questionable (in the eyes

of the authority) credential (a Ph.D. from a unaccredited school), but a

supposedly " potent " new intervention leapfrogged to the front of

psychotherapy, gaining the endorsements of a Harvard psychiatrist (WOW, the

ultimate authority), among others, once the potential of her miracle

intervention became recognized (I tend to think economic potential was

recognized the most). All of a sudden, despite the unanswered scientific

status of her intervention, her method became mainstream and worthy of APA

continued education credits. Depending on who or what sort of an authority

you were, YOUR journal would publish studies either pro or contra to EMDR.

Who or what AUTHORITY should one believe?

This recent event in the history of psychology illustrates that we have not

advanced much beyond the sale of " snake oil " in the continued quest of

Americans (I am an American) to attain perfection and make a buck. And I see

the same happening in sport psychology where one myth after the another

continues to be SOLD, backed by SCIENCE or by ignoring science (NEGATIVE

FINDINGS, e.g., regarding hypnosis in sport) and the AUTHORITY of choice.>

[Mel Siff: For those who may be unfamiliar with EMDR - Eye Movement

Desensitization and Reprocessing - it is yet another rather guruesque system

of therapy which draws on several different existing psychological procedures

and places it within a framework where examination of client eye movements

plays a central role in analysing and applying therapy to handle various

psychological stresses. For further details, go to the official EDMR web

site:

http://www.emdr.com/ ]

---------------------------------