| Author |
 Topic  |
|
stanfr
USA
268 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:26:13
|
Not enough tension in the forum, so i though id stir the pot 
-just kidding.
As i see it, there are three basic premises to Sarno's TMS theory:
1) The symptoms are psychogenic
2) They serve as distraction sto prevent repressed emotions form becoming conscious.
3) The 'cure' is to gain knowlege of the disorder.
Now, #1 is rock solid. One could argue from a body-mind perspective, but that would be counterproductive.
But, what if #2,3 are incorrect?
Floorten recently posted a reworking of TMS theory based on Tolle. I hadn't read Tolle at the time and was pretty critical of his idea. Now, i wonder if maybe he was right, but didn't go far enough?
I found "Power of Now" to be rather dull and silly, way too long for what was basically a simple newage restating of Zen philosophy, dressed up with phrases like "energy" and "vibrational frequency" that point out the author is somewhat clueless.
However, the basic idea may be correct, which is probably why his book was so successful, along with similar themes from D. Millman etc. The idea is that the mind "narrative" is the basis of disease, and by living in the present moment we can eliminate this harmful distraction.
I disagree with floorten and others that Sarno is concisitent with Tolle. There is no way one can "think psychological" and conciously try to retrieve emotions and still follow Tolle's idea of avoiding all concept of time; living only in the moment, etc.
Rather, as floorten points out, Tolle's argument points out the weakness in the Sarno approach, since by "thinking psychological" one might actually be "feeding" the syndrome by actually being part of it. This would explain why many of us who fully accept the psychogenic basis are fighting an uphill battle, and why some report feeling ill or getting worse due to journaling, therapy etc.
Perhaps the symptoms actually serve to distract not from "repressed thoughts/emotions" but conscious ones (or maybe semi-conscious). The constant mind-chatter or narrative of the thinking mind, when not involved in a flight or flight situation (per Amir, Brady, Jacobs etc) could in fact lead to real disease, by the release of stress related chemicals. Left unchecked, the emotions could build up sort of a feedback loop which could reach dangerous levels. So, the distraction could actually once again serve a protective (and evolutionary-based) purpose, by drawing our attention to the present (pain/discomfort) and thereby keeping us from our past-future obsession.
This model avoids the hand-waving involved in Sarno's assertion that by conciously accessing our emotions, we are reaching the subconcious. Sarno admits this is problematic in TDM. With my model, the real key would be to ignore the distraction, thereby rendering it ineffective. Sarno's approach would still work, but for the wrong reason. By gaining knowlege of the essentially harmless nature of the pain/discomfort, it makes it easier for you to ignore it, defeating the distraction.
These are just off-the-cuff thoughts, meant to provoke some constructive comments/criticism--so spare me the "Don't get sidetracked--follow Sarno and ye shall be saved" response  |
Edited by - stanfr on 08/10/2007 13:16:43 |
|
|
pericakralj
77 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:33:21
|
Nothing against you stanfr,but i think Sarno is compleatly right,and that his theory is with out mistke.
WHY?
Because he ,,cured" too many people,and it wasnt just luck.
|
 |
|
|
Dave
USA
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:44:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by pericakralj
Nothing against you stanfr,but i think Sarno is compleatly right,and that his theory is with out mistke.
WHY?
Because he ,,cured" too many people,and it wasnt just luck.
Yep, that's the point. 30 years, thousands of patients. Clinical evidence.
Anyone can write a book and come up with a theory. Sarno was wrong, early on. The distraction theory came only after treating enough patients and analyzing the results.
Pain as a distraction from unconscious emotion is central to the TMS theory.
Where Sarno may be wrong, or incomplete, is in his physical explanation of the mechanism for inducing symptoms. I think "oxygen deprivation" is far too simplistic an explanation, and we really don't know the details of how the brain does what it does. Luckily, that part of the theory is irrelevant to successful treatment. |
|
|
|
Webdan65
USA
182 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:50:13
|
I mentioned it in a previous reply, but I like the concept Brady described of the autonomic nervous system overloading and in a way malfunctioning. Why it malfunctions, it's tough to say. It could be Sarno's theory of distraction from the emotions or something else. But, until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with Sarno's theory of a distraction. He knows a ton more than me - plus his approach works for me personally to eliminate pain. I say stick with what works.
Dan |
|
|
|
stanfr
USA
268 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 12:49:20
|
I appreciate the reponses.
I agree that one should stick with what works, and Sarno worked for me, which is why ive stuck with it despite the nagging problems with some of the underlying principles that floorten and i and others recognize. I think it's easy to say "Sarno is completely right" when one has success with his approach--i certainly know this because this is the way i felt 10 years ago when i cured my sciatica/CTS etc. I'm suggesting that you might change your tune had your experience been different. The uncomfortable truth is that the very nature of the disorder (as formulated by Sarno) makes it extremely difficult to test. I'm not sure what "clinical evidence" Dave is referring to but i'm unaware of any that supports the "Why" of TMS theory. The number of successful patients is not relevant to the "Why" aspect, and that was the very point of my post! Because if the "Why" is not determined, the treatment may not work for everyone--and this is clearly the case with repsect to TMS. Who really knows how many people simply gave up on Sarno's approach because it didn't work for them? Its too convenient to say "well, they didn't try hard enough" or they "had deeper emotional issues they didn't deal with".
What is the proof that the emotions must be "unconscious"? If every one of Sarno's 1000s of patients had been told that the emotions were really "conscious" and to defeat the syndrome they would have to ignore it--how do you know that wouldn't have been just as effective?
Science is not a popularity contest. I can find dozens of internet forums in which dozens, hundreds, thousands of people have been cured of "TMS" symptoms by practicing "energy psychology", drinking urine, drinking lemonade for two weeks (master cleanse), acupuncture, magnets, rolfing etc etc etc. It is foolhardy to call these placebos while claiming Sarno is "knowlege". |
|
|
|
stanfr
USA
268 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 13:46:11
|
quote:
So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
46?
quote:
This board is for those who are convinced of Sarno's teachings. All others can go to the pain management forums.
Now, Now, Shawn...be nice! Those forums are the only place that intelligent debate regarding tms theory would be less welcome, no? |
|
|
|
armchairlinguist
USA
1397 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 13:58:53
|
quote:
why some report feeling ill or getting worse due to journaling, therapy etc.
There is also a Sarno-consistent explanation for this (need for increasing distraction), as you no doubt know.
In the psychological community of inner-child work, it seems to be acknowledged that the unconscious emotions and patterns of the wounded inner child can cause physical pain or illness. It is interesting that this is the same as Sarno's theory.
I don't think we or Sarno know everything about how TMS works -- for example, while I agree with the distraction theory, I think that paradoxically the pain can also be a signal.
I don't see how (3) can really be completely wrong, since many people do have immediate or very quick cures, which cannot be explained by needing to learn to ignore the troublesome thoughts. It's quite difficult to "live in the Now" or change major thought patterns/personality, which is why Sarno emphasizes that that's not usually necessary to be cured.
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
|
|
|
stanfr
USA
268 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 14:50:34
|
ACL: thanks for taking the time to actually read and think about what i wrote--that's refreshing
I agree that there is alot of appeal to the subconscious idea. The strength of my proposal is that it incorporates all of the philosophy and science that supports the "living in the present" idea--Tolle for one, but also science: when i read "ancestral mind" (also recommended by members of this forum--thanks guys!) it also strongly supports the idea that focusing on the moment can be tied to physical health, and conversely that the mind "narrative" may lead to disease.
I agree that my approach to #3 is somewhat problematic when it comes to the 'quick cures' (which are apparently a small minority) I suspect/propose these are minor cases of TMS, where mere acknowlegement of their psychogenic basis is enough to 'kill' the distraction. -S |
|
|
|
ndb
209 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 14:59:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by stanfr
What is the proof that the emotions must be "unconscious"? If every one of Sarno's 1000s of patients had been told that the emotions were really "conscious" and to defeat the syndrome they would have to ignore it--how do you know that wouldn't have been just as effective?
I do not think that this is science in the sense there needs to be a proof. I think of Sarno's theories as hypothesies (pl.?) or axioms if you want. The idea is to assume the axioms and see where that leads. As another example from 'science', some decades ago, the nuclear model of the atom was just that -- a theory of what was inside an atom to explain observed behavior. That did not stop theoretical physicists from assuming that those consistent theories were true na dseeing what could be built upon it.
I think it wastes time to try to look for 'proof'. In my book biological theories don't even have proofs in any mathematical sense.
Hypothesizing, perhaps thinking of it as unconscious helps us to believe because indeed we often realize that though we felt no tangible anger at first, only annoyance, we are able to discover extreme rage. I am not claiming that even this is not made up by our minds -- but one could go on forever arguing like this and not get anyhwere. |
Edited by - ndb on 08/09/2007 15:00:36 |
|
|
|
Dave
USA
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 15:16:47
|
How can you say the "why" has not been determined? Are you privvy to Dr. Sarno's files?
The "why" was determined through careful analysis of clinical data he recorded when he and his psychologists were treating patients.
In fact Dr. Sarno gives several examples in his books where patients experienced relief only after discovering the unconscious emotional issues.
These emotions are completely different from conscious ones. They are primitive, irrational conflicts being experienced by the "child" inside. The TMS mechanism exists to prevent those emotions from coming to the surface and being felt, because the brain has decided that feeling those emotions is too dangerous.
It's not uncommon for some to hypothesize alternate theories. In doing so they dismiss decades of research conducted on thousands of real patients by a medical doctor. It is akin to dismissing all the research that claims smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. How do we know that? Maybe the studies missed the fact that all those smokers also chewed gum, and it was the gum that caused the cancer.
That is an extreme example but I think it makes the point. Until someone comes along with a better theory, or proof that Dr. Sarno is incorrect, I'll trust the good doctor's life work. |
|
|
|
armchairlinguist
USA
1397 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 16:12:26
|
No, the quick cures are actually a majority based on what I've read of Sarno's statistics. The instant cures are a minority, but most people are out of pain in I think two months or so. This is a common misunderstanding on the forum because of the innate bias. Those who experience quick cures mostly don't bother to seek it out, or leave soon after getting a little needed help. (I was all good in about 6 weeks, I just like this forum. ;-))
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
|
|
|
floorten
United Kingdom
120 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 17:34:25
|
Hey stanfr,
I might chip in here, seeing as I had something to do with stirring this up in the first place. I agree with you that your point one is beyond dispute, but points two and three are most open to question.
I have absolutely no idea whether my ideas of applying Tolle are any closer to the truth than Sarno's default explanation. My opinion on this vacillates almost daily. What can't be denied though are some inconsistencies in Sarno's theory. These are:
1. If all that is required to cure TMS is knowledge and psychological vigilance then why are there so many of us self-treaters NOT healing in the typical 6-8 weeks? Why are there very knowledgeable and vigilant people in this forum, myself included, who have been unable to heal certain TMS symptoms at all?
2. TMS symptoms seem a lot more interested in protecting themselves than protecting you. I question the interpretation that this is a way the brain has evolved to protect you for your own good. It's behaviour pattern has much more in common with a parasite that wants to survive. Parasites typically direct their hosts to behaviour that feeds them and protect themselves against the host's efforts to heal.
3. There is much confusion over what the repressed emotional aspect of this is about. Sarno is of the opinion that we are completely UNAWARE of all TMS-inducing rage and it may never even be possible to bring it to the surface. If the knowledge is the answer and digging around for repressed rage is fruitless, then why the advice to journal? And why does journalling seem key in many peoples recovery?
If on the other hand there IS a reservoir of TMS-inducing rage which may be reduced by conscious experiental self-examination, then how come many of Sarno's patients never have to do this, and heal in the typical 6-8 weeks from gaining the knowledge?
The above issues seem to me to be sloppily thought out. People are just ignoring the fact that everything doesn't quite add up, because Sarno undeniably is getting good results. I don't think this is grounds to claim he is 100% "right" though - merely that he was right *enough* to get good results. Newton was "right enough" to be of immense practical use, yet set next to Einstein's complete reframing of physical laws in the light of relativity, we may not be accurate in calling him completely right.
Likewise, anyone who says "leave this forum if you don't agree with Sarno" is just demonstrating perfectly the tribal, irrational nature of the Ego, about which Tolle has spoken at length! ;-)
It seems that stanfr is on the similar lines of thought as I was - that although repressed negative emotions may bring on TMS, they may not be what the distraction is attempting to distract you from.
It seems obvious to me that Sarno is right that distraction is taking place. But the question is distraction from WHAT?
Sarno, having worked with Freudian psychoanalysts, arrived at the conclusion it was distraction from that reservoir of rage.
I'm slowly arriving instead at the conclusion it is distraction from being present in the moment and entirely self-accepting/loving.
I like stanfr's point that there is an evolutionary solution built into the pain, in that if listened to, it must bring you back to physical presence in the moment.
For this reason, I actually believe anxiety and depression are the TMS-parasite's main tools, and that the physical pain is merely a sideline. They don't carry the risk that the pain will bring back bodily awareness, which if maintained will dissolve the TMS-parasite, and so pose lower risk to the TMS's independent survival.
Thoughts?
Greg.
--
"What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves."
Robert Anton Wilson |
Edited by - floorten on 08/09/2007 17:49:42 |
|
|
|
floorten
United Kingdom
120 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 17:39:07
|
| [oops posted twice] |
Edited by - floorten on 08/09/2007 17:40:11 |
|
|
|
armchairlinguist
USA
1397 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 20:50:09
|
I think that there is a lot of confused thought around what Sarno's theories mean. I'm going to take a couple of things that I think are sidetracking floorten, in particular.
quote:
TMS symptoms seem a lot more interested in protecting themselves than protecting you. I question the interpretation that this is a way the brain has evolved to protect you for your own good. It's behaviour pattern has much more in common with a parasite that wants to survive. Parasites typically direct their hosts to behaviour that feeds them and protect themselves against the host's efforts to heal.
Symptoms are VERY interested in maintaining themselves. Sarno is very clear about this. He explains that the unconscious, irrational part of the brain sees the rage (and possibly other) emotions as extremely dangerous. Thus the symptoms try to maintain themselves for the benefit of the part of us that fears the emotions.
I think this actually can be self-consistently expanded to address the issue that they seem to be parasitic. Having done a lot of inner child reading/work, I would argue that the part of us that represses is the part of us which was damaged during our upbringing and taught that emotions are not okay. It is our false self, so to speak. And it is somewhat of a parasite on our true self. And since we have lived so long as this adapted false self, since this self was essential to our survival in our dysfunctional family of origin, it is indeed terrified of being dethroned, because it still feels that we may die if we don't continue the adapted ways. The true self does want to be free and express and experience emotion.
quote:
3. There is much confusion over what the repressed emotional aspect of this is about. Sarno is of the opinion that we are completely UNAWARE of all TMS-inducing rage and it may never even be possible to bring it to the surface. If the knowledge is the answer and digging around for repressed rage is fruitless, then why the advice to journal? And why does journalling seem key in many peoples recovery?
If on the other hand there IS a reservoir of TMS-inducing rage which may be reduced by conscious experiental self-examination, then how come many of Sarno's patients never have to do this, and heal in the typical 6-8 weeks from gaining the knowledge?
Sarno is of the opinion that we can't easily access unconscious rage or other emotions consciously, not that we must remain wholly unaware of their possible causes. Reason, and journalling, can elucidate ideas about why we might be rageful, which can allow us to acknowledge that we are in a rage, and reduces the fear and the need for distraction, thus reducing the pain/symptoms. It can also change how we think about things, like perfectionism. For me, acknowledging that my perfectionism causes inner anger does let me back off it from time to time, and also, the feeling of acknowledging the pressure is itself relieving: because finally the pressure is seen as real, so we don't need distraction anymore from the fact that it is real.
Furthermore, it focuses our thinking on the psychological, so we no longer are thinking of the symptoms, so the symptoms lose their power and disappear.
This is not at all incompatible with the idea that Sarno may actually be overly pessimistic about the ability to access repressed rage. Some people have more repressed rage and need to access it in order to reduce the reservoir and experience relief, or they just need more help in investigating possible causes because they are less self-aware. These are the percentage of people who need therapy. People vary in the amount of treatment they need; Sarno has always been clear about that.
quote:
Sarno, having worked with Freudian psychoanalysts, arrived at the conclusion it was distraction from that reservoir of rage.
I'm slowly arriving instead at the conclusion it is distraction from being present in the moment and entirely self-accepting/loving.
Finally, these can be viewed as the same thing through the lens of the inner child work. Our adapted self is the self that represses, creating the reservoir of rage. It's the self that's afraid of emotions, so it's impossible for this self to be present in the moment and self-loving, so it resists doing this. Having repressed the emotions it has to continually avoid thinking about them so they don't escape. Affect or physical symptoms (pain, anxiety, depression) then appear to serve this need.
Really, I don't see any inconsistency here. I disagree with Sarno on some matters (e.g. ease of access to unconscious emotions), but in essence I think he's correct and no other theory I've seen that makes sense substantively contradicts him.
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
|
|
|
floorten
United Kingdom
120 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 03:39:52
|
ACL - Nicely put points. I can see how you're looking at things and it seems pretty consistent.
I guess I'm just looking for an answer as to the question - why have I been able to shift back pain and RSI with Sarno but not my constant tension headaches?
I don't want to hear that it's because I haven't been true enough to Sarno's principles or because I don't "believe" enough. I'm only starting to question things now because a year down the line I didn't get the results I was expecting. In the first 8 months I dutifully followed the protocol in textbook manner.
Perhaps my headaches aren't actually TMS. Or perhaps they're a mix of TMS and something that doesn't heal so quickly. Or perhaps TMS theory is incomplete, and this explains for the 20% who are unable to self-heal. It's worth examining. It's certainly worth examining if you *are* one of that 20%, who is still suffering pain daily after many months of Sarno work.
The few TMS old-hands on this forum whose reaction is always to say "you're not believing enough" or "you're focussing too much on your symptoms" rather remind me of those Christians who say God answers every prayer, but when you tell them about a prayer that went unanswered, they say "well, you can't have prayed hard enough about it.". Umm... how convenient ;-)
Greg.
--
"What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves."
Robert Anton Wilson |
|
|
|
Webdan65
USA
182 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 06:36:54
|
Fortunately we don't need to know the exact technical workings of the internet and a computer to be able to use it effectively. Same holds true to Sarno and Healing Back Pain. We don't have to totally understand the fine technical (emotional/physiological) details on exactly HOW it works to eliminate our pain.
We must simply open the owners manual and follow the user guide which Sarno has thankfully provided for us.
* Read and re-read the information.
* Refute the physical.
* Don't be afraid, you're not broken.
* Think Psychological.
* Talk to your brain.
* Journal.
* Resume physical activity.
Wrinse, lather, repeat.
Dan |
|
|
|
Shary
147 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 08:42:46
|
There is much in Sarno's theory that is either too good to be true or just flat doesn't add up. Thank you Floorten and Stanfr for having the courage to point this out on what is an extremely narrow-minded website.
Sarno himself admits he screens his patients for suitability and that he is unable to help some 15 or 20 percent. This in itself should raise red flags. There is, after all, a very fine line between Sarno's system and the much-maligned placebo effect. Is that why his methods never made it into mainstream medicine? Or is it partly because those other less enlightened doctors out there have inherited the Sarno rejects and failures.
So what about the other 80 percent? Sure, there are people who have been legitimately helped by thinking psychological for the simple reason that some illnesses and/or pain are psychologically induced. But there are also people so susceptible to suggestion that they could be cured just as easily through an hour of hypnosis. And how many of those 80 percent would have recovered spontaneously, had they done nothing at all? Does Sarno deliberately screen in favor of such people? Furthermore, what makes him worth $1000 for a 45-minute visit when, for many of us, his self-help methods haven't worked? Could it be that he is just another doctor/author who happened onto something that works for a few, and now he is all about the money? (In the overall scheme of things, Shawn, 11,000 IS a few)
If you like to debate abstact psychological issues, this is the place for you. If, on the other hand, you are looking for relief and haven't found it through Sarno, maybe it's time to stop chasing the end of the rainbow. The whole TMS idea is an incomplete theory that is dangerously close to being a placebo. If it wasn't, there would be no 20 percent; it would work for everyone.
Fact is, you may not have a clearcut case of TMS. You may not have TMS at all but rather something more complex that is interwoven with other factors and only mimics TMS, sort of a TMS-Plus (for lack of a better name). Stop wasting months of your life listening to tunnel-visioned people like Shawnsmith and start investigating to see what ELSE is out there that might help. I did and it paid off. |
|
|
|
armchairlinguist
USA
1397 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 08:43:35
|
Floorten, my answer would be -- try a different form of emotional investigation, such as therapy, if you haven't already. I generally am not in the habit of telling people who've already had some success that they don't believe enough, because they clearly do.
I am going to resort to one of the cliches and say, don't put too much time pressure on yourself... :-)
Shawn, if you think this thread is a waste of time, just stay away, for Pete's sake. I think it's a great chance to refine our understanding of Sarno and other related theories (like the inner child theory) and thus potentially advance our healing by revealing an angle for investigation that we hadn't considered before.
Also? Sarno's theory is a theory. It's a strong theory like the theory of relativity: lots of evidence, lots of solid concepts. But it's a theory. Not an unquestionable matter of faith.
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
|
|
|
Dave
USA
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 09:52:16
|
It is very convenient for those who don't get a complete "cure" to surmise that Dr. Sarno is simply wrong.
In fact, the majority of the world has reached this conclusion.
It's much easier to believe that Dr. Sarno is wrong than to admit that you are a failure if the treatment doesn't work.
As to the question of why some people don't get better, Dr. Sarno offers many explanations. But ultimately, the reason is highly personal, and different for everyone.
I have to agree that parts of Dr. Sarno's writings provide a way too optimistic point of view. This is understandable, since he is trying to make a convincing argument, so that the reader has a better chance of success. I have said before that I do not believe the "majority" of patients get completely better in a matter of weeks, or if it is in fact a majority, it is probably 50.0001%.
I personally believe many people have too high expectations when it comes to "curing" TMS. For me, the "cure" is that I have completely banished the fear. If I get the occasional twinge in my lower back I no longer run to the chiropractor or fear that I will have debilitating back spasms or that there is something wrong with my spine. If I experience psychogenic symptoms I treat them as a signal that I am avoiding something that is going on in my life, and I try to find the emotions that I am "pushing down" into my body. Most importantly, I just don't let the pain affect my life at all.
Am I "cured?" Not if it mean being 100% free of psychogenic symptoms. But I look at where I was before discovering Sarno, and where I am now, and see two different worlds. And I'm much better off now, but still have work to do. I expect that work to continue for the rest of my life, and that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
Shary
147 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 10:23:38
|
| Shawn, perhaps I come here as an offsetting factor. You do people a major disservice by leading them to believe that Sarno-ization is a cure-all when in fact for many of us it isn't. I don't necessarily think Sarno is all wet because I do believe in physical ailments that are psychologically induced. But I also think he's capitalizing on an oversimplified 'cure' that offers too much in the way of hope and not enough in the way of lasting recovery. |
|
|
|
drziggles
USA
292 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 10:38:08
|
God, there is so much hostility from some people on this forum--I think maybe they should look at why they can't handle even the slightest questioning or critique of Sarno. He's not Kim Jong Il, and this isn't North Korea, so get a grip! The initial question posed and the discussions thereafter have been interesting and thoughtful, which is worthwhile on this board. What is a waste of time is 1000+ posts from some people here who just want to have online friends.
For better or worse, one size does not fit all for any condition, particularly one as common and heterogeneous as TMS. Some people do not benefit from Sarno's theory because they are unwilling to buy it, and others sincerely try and still have significant difficulty. Do we just hang all of these people out to dry? Others do improve with certain physical or combined approaches--maybe some is placebo effect, but maybe some people just respond to different treatments. Being a complete dogmatist about TMS is like saying that EVERY single person with diabetes should only take one type of drug to get better, and if the person doesn't respond it's their fault.
The hallmark of the scientific method is being critical about theories at all times, particularly when data doesn't fit, and constantly revising and improving these theories through observation and fine-tuning. Closing your mind because you have no capacity for ambiguity is immature and counterproductive.
One hole in the theory of distraction in TMS in my mind involves minor symptoms like acne or allergies. For most people, these problems are a minor annoyance, and not enough to pose any serious distraction from emotional issues. What is their purpose?
I will pose a hypothetical question to the die-hards here. Let's say at some point the underlying biological mechanism for TMS is found, and it could be treated with a pill, rather than through the process of education and dealing with underlying repressed emotions. How would that make you feel? Discuss. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Parts of TMS theory incomple/mistaken?
