You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   10-34   35-59   60-84   85-109   110-134   135-159   160-170   
 
Author Message
25 new of 170 responses total.
jaklumen
response 35 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 04:27 UTC 2002

RET= Rapid Eye Therapy.  Apparently, RET and EMDR may be similar yet 
independently produced theories.  I am not sure of the second, but RET 
is recreating and using rapid eye movement (REM) as in active sleep 
(dreaming stages) to reprocess thoughts and memories associated with 
certain traumas, addictions, etc.
jep
response 36 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 16:03 UTC 2002

RET is a philosophical, spiritual thing.  EMDR is a psychological 
treatment.  That's about all I know about them.
bhelliom
response 37 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 16:59 UTC 2002

What are your thoughts on trying EMDR, John?  Do you know yet how it's 
supposed to work?

I suppose one of hardest things to do is to know where to begin?  
Despite the fact that  a lot of the depression discussion can consist 
of chicken or egg first arguments sometimes, somtimes it's a matter of 
figuring out from which angle to begin, to help you focus on other 
things, progressively changing certain learned behaviours.  (I don't 
know if that made sense to anyone.)
jep
response 38 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 17:58 UTC 2002

I've told my therapist I'm all right with trying it.  He says he's 
worked with it for several years and seen it work a lot.  I don't know 
how it's going to help me exactly.

He gave me some examples.  One was a mid-30's man who broke down and 
was unable to stand up to his mother whenever she was critical to him, 
going through EMDR and then he was at least able to say "no" to her.

No one knows *how* it works, from what I understand.  It just does.  
Okay, fine.  I can live with that.  It's supposed to take feelings that 
seem very immediate and move them into a part of your brain where they 
seem less immediate.

It won't help me get over what he calls my grief over the divorce.  It 
could help me get over being unable to control my inappropriate anger.  
The problem for me is, I don't consider my anger inappropriate.  I 
guess I have to get over it anyway.  That's a hard part for me.

My depression is pretty specific and situational.  I don't think I was 
depressed before the divorce came along.  I don't know of a good way to 
deal with the divorce.  That's my whole problem.  I guess.

I risk taking over this item and turning it into another divorce item.  
I don't want to do that.  
bhelliom
response 39 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 19:20 UTC 2002

Don't worry, I don't think we'll let that happen. :)

On your anger in general . . . not admitting or not believing that the 
anger is inappropriate, I would think, may hinder your ability to make 
a success out of the EMDR.
keesan
response 40 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 19:56 UTC 2002

Anger is inappropriate when you cannot control it and when expressing it does
not do anybody any good.
jep
response 41 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 1 21:44 UTC 2002

re #39: Right, it is difficult for a therapist to help you solve a 
problem you don't want to solve, or don't regard as a problem.

My therapist usually describes EMDR in idyllic terms.  I have wondered 
what would happen if I asked him to help me get over my inappropriate 
inhibitions against attacking someone... surely such things can be used 
for different types of goals.  I'm sure he would not be willing to help 
me in that way, though.

re #40: The anger is inappropriate, or expressing it is inappropriate?

What do you mean by "control"?  Control when to feel it?  I'm a failure 
at that.  Control what happens as a result of it?  To what degree?  I 
haven't physically attacked anyone yet, or raised my blood pressure to 
the point where I have a stroke.  I've said and done things I regretted 
because I was angry, both during my current divorce and accompanying 
depression, and in the past.

Anger is an emotion.  It's just there.  It's not right and it's not 
wrong.  It's a thing to be dealt with, like intelligence or a headache.
russ
response 42 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 01:48 UTC 2002

(Reports I've seen have said that EMDR shows zero effectiveness in
trials which compared "correct" therapies versus "wrong" therapies
for the disorder to be treated.  You'll get something from the
placebo effect, but that's no reason to pay someone a buncha dough.)

(If you have an ethical problem with feeding scammers, even if it's
your insurance company's money and not yours, avoiding EMDR is probably
a good way to feel better about yourself.)
keesan
response 43 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 01:55 UTC 2002

There are more useful ways to react to situations than with anger, whether
or not you act on the anger.  Anger can hurt the person feeling it
(interfering with sleep or with doing something to improve the situation) and
expressing it can make things worse.  People who get angry assume that the
other person did something specifically to hurt them, when they were probably
just acting to help themselves and did not care much how it affected other
people.  It is less stressful if you can just try to forget what they did,
or deal with the consequences without getting angry.
clees
response 44 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 07:58 UTC 2002

Anger is an inappropriate emotion? That reminds me of Marge Simpson 
when she gives advice to sad, depressed Lisa to push the emotion deep 
down to your toes and forget about it. (o yes, I get my ideas from the 
magic black box called tv :)
Anger is quite natural as such.
It only depends whether that emotion is justified.
John is right, it's just an emotion. 
IMHO storing emotions in another part of the brain with EMDR seems 
pretty insensible to me, but I may have an entirely wrong impression of 
the process.
I remember I have done RET for awhile.
bhelliom
response 45 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 12:49 UTC 2002

Russ, do you have more information on that.  Now I'm really curious.  
If you just point me to one of the beeter sites . ..  or would APA or 
like groups be a decent place to start?
edina
response 46 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 13:02 UTC 2002

Re 43  Gee - I can't imagine why you aren't a therapist.
brighn
response 47 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 13:18 UTC 2002

#44> The father on King of the Hill's advice is much simpler: "Swallow it.
Just swallow it."
jep
response 48 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 13:38 UTC 2002

There is very little information on the WWW about EMDR, and I didn't 
think any of it was very objective.  There are sites which promote it 
as an ideal therapy for almost anything, and others which denounce it 
as completely without basis (without saying anything about whether it's 
effective).  My therapist is a proponent who says he's seen it work a 
lot; at least I know him somewhat and so I'll go with his opinion.  
When I give it a try, I'll bring back a report about what it was like.
bhelliom
response 49 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 17:49 UTC 2002

Well, obviously, people respond differently to such therapies as they 
do with everything else. Good luck with it, John.
jep
response 50 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 2 19:48 UTC 2002

Thanks!
russ
response 51 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 3 03:44 UTC 2002

Re #45:  Try searching csicop.org.  Unfortunately all of my back
issues of Skeptical Inquirer are buried pretty deeply (dead trees
are nice for reading, lousy for searching).

Re #48:  If you look at the claims for EMDR and the claims once
made for snake oil, they sound eerily similar.  Probably for good
reason, too.
jaklumen
response 52 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 4 13:10 UTC 2002

This response has been erased.

jaklumen
response 53 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 4 13:14 UTC 2002

((inferno item #7 <----------> recovery item #21))

see also item:19
jazz
response 54 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 5 20:13 UTC 2002

        There's no real basis in snake oil - outside of the placebo effect -
and EMDR has a real basis, though it doesn't follow most of the research I've
read in the field, in eye positioning based on emotional states combined with
creating physiological states to influence psychological ones.  Insofar as
I can tell, both phenomena are real, and therefore EMDR may have some basis
in fact.
md
response 55 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 7 14:13 UTC 2002

from http://www.quackwatch.com/

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)

EMDR is promoted for the treatment of post-traumatic stress, phobias, 
learning disorders, and many other mental and emotional problems. The 
method involves asking the client to recall the traumatic event as 
vividly as possible and rate certain feelings before and after visually 
tracking the therapist's finger as it is moved back and forth in front 
of the client's eyes [6]. EMDR's developer and leading proponent, 
Francine Shapiro, Ph.D., received her doctoral degree in 1988 and 
established the EMDR Institute to train mental health professionals. 
She and her associates have trained more than 22,000 clinicians 
worldwide in workshops that in 1997 cost $385 [7]. EMDR resembles 
various traditional behavioral therapies for reducing fears in that it 
requires clients to imagine traumatic events in a gradual fashion in 
the presence of a supportive therapist. However, controlled research 
has shown that EMDR's most distinctive feature (visual tracking) is 
unnecessary and is irrelevant to whatever benefits the patient may 
receive [8]. Recent reviews have concluded that the data claimed to 
support EMDR derive mostly from uncontrolled case reports and poorly 
designed controlled experiments and that the theory of EMDR clashes 
with scientific knowledge of the role of eye movements [9,10].
jep
response 56 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 8 01:09 UTC 2002

re #55: I've read that type of comment about EMDR, but the comment 
doesn't address whether it works or not.  My therapist claims it does 
work.  However, I think he's giving up on trying it on me at least to 
help with my biggest problem -- anger over my divorce -- since I think 
my anger is appropriate and not something that needs to be cured.

So, those who were concerned (from the divorce item) that I was going 
for some quack therapy can relax about that.  I at least have not tried 
it yet.
jep
response 57 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 8 10:42 UTC 2002

There's another article in USA Today, questioning the value of 
antidepressants.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/health/drugs/2002-07-08-
antidepressants.htm

The article says tests show they work only 18% better than placebos, 
which I expect means they helped 18% of people.

Maybe I'm lucky, but I believe my Zoloft prescription is helping me a 
lot with my depression.  It hasn't cured everything, but it's given me 
a break from hopeless despair to a much more normal state of mind.
mary
response 58 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 8 10:58 UTC 2002

Some of the best and most powerful treatments out there
work because of the placebo effect.  So your 18% is probably
far too low an estimate.  
cmcgee
response 59 of 170: Mark Unseen   Jul 8 11:16 UTC 2002

As I recall, placebos work pretty well for depression, so wouldn't that
mean antidepressants work pretty-well+18% ?
 0-24   10-34   35-59   60-84   85-109   110-134   135-159   160-170   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss