![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 38 to 62 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by fires on June 10, 2004, at 12:43:43
In reply to Re: some suggestions? - DR. BOB and » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on June 10, 2004, at 12:12:45
I'll wait for Dr. Bob. I'm not "getting" the idea, if it applies to me. (I didn't say that I found anything condescending.)
Thanks
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2004, at 8:23:41
In reply to Re: some suggestions? - DR. BOB and » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on June 10, 2004, at 12:12:45
> I think what Dr. Bob is aiming for is an I statement, how you felt when you read the statement. Instead of a comment on the statement or the maker of the statement.
Exactly right, thanks for clarifying.
> And Dr. Bob, perhaps you can infer from my post here that it is my opinion that you might have missed some things on this thread. Perhaps you could revisit it?
Sorry, could you be more specific? Maybe in an email if you'd rather not post it? Thanks,
Bob
PS: Remember, everyone, if someone bothers you, it may be best just not to respond. Or even not to read their posts. There may be posters who try to start arguments and upset others. Of course, not everyone who starts arguments or upsets others *intends* to do so.
Posted by fires on June 12, 2004, at 12:34:01
In reply to Re: please rephrase that again » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2004, at 8:23:41
I am not shy about voicing my opinions. I don't expect everyone to agree with them. I feel that I state them in an assertive manner (which seems to irritate some folks). Perhaps I had too much assertiveness training.;) Also, The first English teacher I had after HS said to never start a statement of opinion with "In my opinion". She said that doing so is redundant. I can't bring myself to change. I find the statement IMHO ("in my humble opinion") to be extremely redundant -- whom among us is not "humble." ;)
Posted by karen_kay on June 12, 2004, at 19:36:23
In reply to Re: LucyStone - Re: Bothered, posted by fires on June 7, 2004, at 18:00:34
i've learned the reasons for my anxiety. i remembered events from my childhood that directly caused me to be overly-anxious. it had a lot to do with me not feeling in control, which would cause me to 'flip out'. i don't mean raging or ranting, but i'd pace entirely too much if i felt that circumstances brought to me a feeling of not being in control. and there were other indicators that caused me to almost lose touch with reality, in a sense. showering (and closing my eyes in the shower was not an option. when washing my face, i'd have to wash half my face at a time so that i always had one eye open.) was a traumatic experience in itself for me. and i never could figure out why, until i was forced to talk in great detail about my past (what little i could remember). or, the fear of going to sleep, even with a light on. i realized why i would feel my heart racing and why i had to sleep with a light on.
any matter in which i felt i had no control (over my body or the situation) caused me utter panic. i'd pace. i'd cry. i would find it hard to breathe or even move. it's funny (you brought back some things, sorry if you find this boring) that i can still remember laying in bed and being fearful for my life. even with a light on, i would time my breathing to be sure no one could hear me breathe. i wouldn't move even if i had a cramp or an itch.
and vacuuming or drying my hair (anything that made noise and i wasn't able to hear what was going on around me) for a while was out of the question. in a sense, i was terrified somethign was coming to get me. and when i first started therapy, i thought that something was the devil or the boogey man. i realized, through therapy, just what i was afraid of (my father). i've realized that he isn't coming to get me. i've realized that i no longer have to live in fear. and i realized all of this the moment i understood what i was afraid of and why. (and i really thought i was going crazy before i realized what it was i was afraid of.)
so, to answer your question, i'd flip out when i was in a situation that caused me to feel as though i had no control (probably also stemming from my mother) and i'd become anxious when i wasn't completely aware of my surroundings. once i realized what i was afraid of, i haven't had that problem.
btw, i didn't take your comment to be condescending in any way.
Posted by fires on June 12, 2004, at 22:09:34
In reply to sorry, it takes a while.... » fires, posted by karen_kay on June 12, 2004, at 19:36:23
You said:
>>i've learned the reasons for my anxiety. i remembered events from my childhood that directly caused me to be overly-anxious.<<
I'm wondering how you learned the reasons. I'll be ok as long as you don't say you learned it while under hypnosis, or in therapy in which the therapist "led" you to "recover" these memories.
I don't want you to feel weird about why I'm asking the above, so let me explain. Years ago I attended a lecture at a Univ. here in so. Cal. at which an expert on memory(PDoc, neuroscientist, ?) spoke on "recovered memories". He and most experts believe that there is no such thing. Think about it, have you somehow suppressed any of your most recent disturbing memories? The speaker said that it is impossible to suppress bad memories.*
Number 2 point is that I've done a lot of reading about False Memory Syndrome. This is a syndrome in which people can be easily led to believe that things happened in their past that never really did. Psychs some years back caused a major nationwide problem: children accusing innocent parents of molestation, etc.., because they were falsely led to believe that their parents really did do what they "remembered."*
* links available upon request
Thanks for sharing
Posted by karen_kay on June 13, 2004, at 14:18:55
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 12, 2004, at 22:09:34
and frequently asked bubba (my therapist) about whether these memories could be false. but, he did not lead me in anyway, shape or form. also, i was not under hypnosis at any point in therapy (nor ever actually).
and beleive me, we spent alot of time with me questioning him over and over, because in my mind i had severe concerns about 'false' memories. but, one day, while discussing things with my friend, she said she remembered me telling her about certain things that happened. (i swear, i don't recall ever telling her a single thing, but she knew too much for it to just be a coincidence)
and i have an older sister who was abused, but spoke up when it happened. my other sister demonstrates the same memory loss as i, and frequently while growing up forgot how to get home (we lived in a very small town).
so, i was VERY concerned about false memories. he didn't lead me in any way, just encouraged me to talk about my father (who when i began was a saint). he never once even mentioned the possibility of abuse, until i began to remember daddy watching me take a bath and i specifically started to remember other things that happened. and i still had my doubts until i talked to a friend about therapy and the situation and she said 'you told me aobut that once in school.'
so, i too was very skeptical about these recovered memories. but, i don't believe everything someone says, just because they have a degree or are lecturing about a specific subject. i can say with honesty that perhaps some recovered memories are false (as there is proof that i've read aobut). i just have too much proof that mine aren't. but, i would be very happy if they were!
Posted by antigua on June 13, 2004, at 18:17:58
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 12, 2004, at 22:09:34
Don't need links. They're everywhere and they do a lot of damage to people who've experienced trauma. If you've never experienced trauma, or recovered memories, I would hope you that you would be as kind as other people have been to you on this site. Speaking from experience is the strongest point of reference.
antigua
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 13, 2004, at 20:03:30
In reply to i too was concerned about that.. *trigger?* » fires, posted by karen_kay on June 13, 2004, at 14:18:55
Posted by pegasus on June 13, 2004, at 22:14:25
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 12, 2004, at 22:09:34
I believe that it is incorrect to say that most experts do not believe in recovered memories. Here is a link to just one of many sites discussing publications by experts in the field of trauma and recovery that do recognize the frequency of amnesia and delayed recall for traumatic events: http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/
Perhaps delayed recall of traumatic events is not the same thing as the "recovered memories" that you mention. I believe that in most of the publications mentioned above, the memories that are recollected are not drawn out by any intervention of a therapist of any sort. Rather they are recollected independently by the clients on their own. Although in most cases these clients were in therapy -- just not being led or prompted by their therapists to recover any memories.
I think also that most experts do agree that some "recovered memories" that have been reported in the past have turned out to be false. But that is a far cry from believing that there is no such thing as a recovered memory.
pegasus
Posted by DaisyM on June 14, 2004, at 15:13:09
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 12, 2004, at 22:09:34
I'm going to add my voice here...I've done a ton of studying on brain development and there is a great deal of research about how early trauma can actual change the shape and size of certain brain centers. We do lay down traumatic memories in a different way and we do protect ourselves by leaving them fairly inaccessible. Think about a non-traumatic memory, say a movie you've seen. You start talking about it with someone, who says, "Yeah, remember this part...and you say Oh, yeah, I forgot about that" and so it goes. Memory recall is a process.
I would have told you a year ago that I knew exactly what happened to me. Turns out I did, but there is a lot more that I blocked out. It makes one suffer to keep adding new knowledge to already hard to accept facts.
There are also, btw, protocols for therapists to follow when doing this kind of work. They ask questions like "what else do you want to tell me? or do you remember anything else?" not, "do you thinks such and such happened." They aren't supposed to suggest but they do clarify when the facts are presented, or reframe. They help you speak the truth and then believe it yourself. They also are not supposed to push. Letting stuff come in bits and pieces is important because the person remembering has to be able to handle it. It can be overwhelming and utterly devastating.
I know.
Posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 15:15:31
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while.... » fires, posted by pegasus on June 13, 2004, at 22:14:25
I thought that my reply to the earlier poster got thru, but it apparently didn't. She had told me that links to false memory syn. and recovered memories were very damaging to trauma victims.
If she is still reading this , my question is WHY? If you believe that the links I post are not scientifically valid than You can disregard them. I can't make anyone believe anything that they choose not to. (If you don't want to see my links, quit reading here)
My brother died yesterday at 05:35 PDT, at home with me. He had eophageal cancer for about 4 + years. Hospice personnel did not arrive before he passed. My subconscious/unconscious will NEVER be able to let me forgot the memory of his passing. I will spare all the details.
In memory of my brother I would like to post the following 2 links: (he would want me to, as he too was a "freethiner")
http://skepdic.com/falsememory.html
http://skepdic.com/repress.html
pegasus, I hope I have responded to your post in addition to the previous post mentioned.(by posting the links).
Best wishes
Posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 15:20:31
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while.... » fires, posted by DaisyM on June 14, 2004, at 15:13:09
Please go to the 2 links I provided just minutes ago. Also, please Google "Elizabeth Loftus" and read about her research. It is incredibly easy to get people to believe that things that never occurred, "really did."
I'm too busy to do provide further scientific documentation - I'm prparing for my brother's memorial service, etc...
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2004, at 15:42:21
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 15:15:31
I'm sorry about your brother. This must be a difficult time for you.
But yes, studies that say what you're experiencing can't possibly be what you're experiencing are distressing. To tell someone that they are incorrect in their own experience is distressing. I don't have recovered memories, but there have been enough "you can't possibly experience what you are experiencing" studies out there for what I do experience that I understand the feelings involved. I imagine that unless you've had an experience and had everyone tell you that you are mistaken (at best) or lying (at worst) that perhaps you can't understand the internal conflict that those studies cause.
Can you understand how someone telling you something along those lines could be distressing? If it hasn't occurred to you yet, you might compare it to doctors telling you that drug side effects that you are experiencing are not, in fact, side effects of that drug at all. And we all know how correct *those* doctors were. I don't think that anyone can definitively answer questions about what is and isn't possible in the brain yet, so isn't it more supportive and kind to not tell someone that they are wrong about their own experiences?
Posted by pegasus on June 14, 2004, at 16:15:20
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 15:15:31
Fires, I'm so sorry about your brother. I'm sure you will never forget him, or you presence at his death.
But, then, I'm sure you weren't disssociating during the experience.
I don't see anything in your posted links that contradict what Daisy or I or anyone here has been saying about recalling memories of past traumas. I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that your links were an argument against the very possibility of delayed recall of traumatic events. Or possibly you were just defining what you meant by "recovered memory".
I do want to point out that what Elizabeth Loftus et al have discovered does not really address the question of amnesia for traumatic events. They just show that it is possible to plant false memories in people. I think we all agree that that is possible. And I don't know of many mainstream folks who would argue for RMT as a useful tool these days.
But there is also research into the possibility of people having amnesia for traumatic events. Especially in situations of severe trauma during childhood. The theory, which makes a lot of sense to me, is that dissociation happens because a child experiencing trauma is especially vulnerable and unable to escape. So dissociation is a common coping mechanism used by individuals in these situations. When one dissociates, by definition, they aren't paying much attention to what's going on. So, they are likely to lose those memories preferentially over other types of memories.
None of the research cited by your links shows that memories are *not* lost by some folks who have experienced trauma and dissociation. And the testimony we see here every day helps convince me that it is likely to be a real phenomenon. I am skeptical of your skeptics' arguments, because I believe they don't directly address some viable possibilities.
pegasus
Posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 16:25:09
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by pegasus on June 14, 2004, at 16:15:20
Very well stated post. Sorry I don't have time to respond now. I'm trying to write a eulogy (sp?) for my brother and I'm waiting to hear from the local newspaper. Perhaps in a week or so, I will surface to gently debate you on the topic.
Thanks,
Posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 16:35:19
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while.... » fires, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2004, at 15:42:21
Sorry, for brief reply, but I'm busy with my brother's memorial arrangements.
What I've found distressing about Psych(ology and iatry) is that there are drs. in both groups that want everyone to "talk" out their physical symptoms or admit to some character/personality/thinking flaw that is making them feel like they have the flu or making their legs ache 24/7.
Back in about a week .
bye
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2004, at 20:40:35
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 14, 2004, at 16:35:19
> Sorry, for brief reply, but I'm busy with my brother's memorial arrangements.
I'm sorry about your brother, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding grief, mourning, and loss to Psycho-Babble Grief. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by fires on June 19, 2004, at 22:02:21
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while.... » fires, posted by DaisyM on June 14, 2004, at 15:13:09
Hi, You posted:
>>We do lay down traumatic memories in a different way and we do protect ourselves by leaving them fairly inaccessible<<
Can you site me a source for the above contention?
I would like to cite a source, that cites more sources, that dispute your contention:
Please don't attack me for disputing your contention. Debate is healthy and vital to the search for real knowledge.
Best wishes
Posted by lucy stone on June 19, 2004, at 22:22:26
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 19, 2004, at 22:02:21
If you are interested in debating psychological treatments or theories, why don't you use a source other than the Skeptic Dictionary website? The sources the author uses are mostly from the popular media and are not scientific sources. It's not really the best place to get information.
Posted by fires on June 19, 2004, at 22:31:43
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by lucy stone on June 19, 2004, at 22:22:26
If you go to several of those sites you will find some of the original sources (very scientific).
Also, there are quite a few sources listed that are as scientific as they come. Perhaps you missed them. I counted 6 solid sources and a couple of highly respected sources: NPR and New Scientist.
Thanks for the reply
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2004, at 7:51:06
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 19, 2004, at 22:02:21
Debate may indeed be healthy, but this is not a debating forum. I'm sure there are many debating forums.
I try to be very cautious in interfering in a therapeutic relationship that doesn't involve me, most especially ones that are working well for the client involved. I'm sure I could find many sources that back that statement up, but I don't know if you'd find them "scientific" enough, as they generally come from the therapeutic community.
It is really tough to admit to controversial therapeutic issues on this board and whenever I do I live in fear that I've made a mistake in self disclosure. So if you ever think I'm full of hot air when speaking of my own issues, and have the skepdic's website to prove it, I am earnestly requesting that you not tell me that what I'm experiencing isn't true, no matter what your personal opionion, backed with skeptical sources, is about it. I assure you, I have a certain facility with web research, and have probably read and been distressed by all those sources already, and don't need it in the one place on the web where I feel safe to disclose without judgement.
Posted by lucy stone on June 20, 2004, at 8:29:16
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by fires on June 19, 2004, at 22:31:43
NPR and New Scientist are not scientifc sources, they are secondary sources. They stories they report are the result of research by a reporter, not by a scientist. Psychologica treatments are very difficult to study by strict scientific methods, because the studies are very difficult to design. How to do you do a double blind study of something like psychocanalysis or EMDR? You can't. The best you can do is have trained professionals apply the techniques and objectively report on the results. Skeptics can always find things to criticize about methods studied in that way, but that doesn't mean the skeptics are right. When highly trained professionals say that certain methods are helpful to their patients, and when patients that have been in distress find improvemnt in their lives, sometimes that has to be enough proof.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 20, 2004, at 12:13:06
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by lucy stone on June 20, 2004, at 8:29:16
I would like to add that a great deal of efficacy and effectivity studies of psychotherapy center on CBT because that approach lends itself to a more controlled study than psychodynamic therapies do. That, IMO, is why CBT is leading the way in the research. It's simply easier to study, because the interventions are more concrete and more easily standardized. I believe the body of literature is skewed towards CBT for this reason. Psychodynamic therapy is so individually-based and so dependent on the therapeutic alliance, that it is hard to control and still provide ethical treatment within a research frame. Process studies of psychodynamic therapy, however, are identifying key and effective process elements which are proving to be robust.
Regards,
gg
Posted by fires on June 20, 2004, at 14:52:57
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while.... » fires, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2004, at 7:51:06
I'm going to reply to you with a short story. I hope they are allowed here. (A true story). I was fishing at a mountain lake once when I young man came up near me and started fishing. He was schizophrenic and under partial control from meds. He told me that he was doing much better since he went out to the dry lake, just a short distance from the lake we were at. Said he saw some sort of "healer" there who exorcised the demons from his body.
If he were to come on one of the PB forums and say that his schizophrenia had been helped/cured by exorcism, wouldn't it be helpful for someone like me to post something about the fact that schizophrenia is not due to demonic possession?
I hope I've made my point. Also, I don't understand how my posts could possibly upset your feeling of safety to disclose here, because you stated that you had probably already been to the sites I post. Also why would the info. be so distressing if you truely believe in your therapy?
Finally, you don't have to read my posts. Just skip them if you don't want to read them. I think that you are treading on a freedom of speech and right of public rebuttal issue here.
Thank you
Posted by fires on June 20, 2004, at 15:11:45
In reply to Re: sorry, it takes a while...., posted by lucy stone on June 20, 2004, at 8:29:16
Have you heard of "rebirthing therapy?" Children have actually been killed by therapists whom were "highly trained" and had anecdotal evidence that the therapy worked. Link to news story about young girl's death. Link at end of article about legislation to outlaw such therapy.
I'm not attempting to convince you to stop any T that you believe is helping you, I'm merely trying to get out the word to those who search forums like this one, for a T that might work for them. I believe that it is only fair that they be allowed to know about the controversial nature of EMDR. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you only think that your beliefs/"facts" should be allowed on this forum?
Thank you
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.