![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 41 to 65 of 65. Go back in thread:
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 1:55:20
In reply to Re: Take a test » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 23:30:28
So, presuming this stuff you keep presenting this board with is true. They the "False Memory believers" think that most of what our memory bank is false. With all due respect, Fires, are you trying to say you have false memories?
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2004, at 7:50:03
In reply to Re: Take a test » lifeworthliving, posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 16:47:34
> ... and like a poster mentioned previously about the bank robbery, all might not recall the more "minor" details, or describe them the same way, but all would agree that they had witnessed a robbery. i'm confident that what i remember is true... even when i doubt.
> > life
>
> Yeah, but it's so easy to be fooled by one's "memories":
>
> Great article:
> http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/39/features-abramsky.phpWell, yes and no.
I find it intriguing that Loftus was alleged to have manipulated the respondent in the legal action, the child's mother, "...Loftus went beyond the bounds of academic research, by “befriending” Jane Doe’s mother to the point where she would provide a willing audience for poetry the mother had written, by coaching her to believe she had not abused her daughter decades earlier..." Let's see, an expert in the manipulation of memory tampering with a witness' memory, to win a legal action, and to "prove" a point?
We'll leave that aside for now, but I really think you should also read Heaps and Nash, and Huffman et al. (Pubmed abstracts #'s 11486925, 12199217, 9479481. Just plug the numbers into the search bar).
About memory in therapy (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy)....
One of the goals of CBT is to change the interpretion of life experiences, the process I summarize as "same facts, different conclusions". In this case, the "facts" are memories, plain and simple. For good or ill, that is all there is to work from. With respect to memories from childhood, there are certain features of a child's perspective that do not carry over into adulthood (cognitive schemae unique to periods of development, as described by e.g. Piaget), but the memory itself retains them. Without realizing it, an adult is also remembering the viewpoint of the child. That can be reassessed. There are many factors influencing the emotional impact of a memory that can be reassessed. The point is to diminish the maladaptive characteristics of memory, and to enhance the adaptive.
I think it is an exceedingly important issue to consider the use to which those memories are to be put. In the general case, I do not believe that memories ought to be used to blame another person for causing hurt. Attribution, distinct from blame, is part of the process of defining boundaries, i.e. that which is in your private realm, and that which is not. "I am hurt" is not equivalent to "You hurt me". The important issue with the memories is what they mean to you, their private meaning, and how they influence current states of mind.
The second aspect of CBT, and the one least often adequately explored (IMHO), is the behavioural component. All the thinking in the world will not effect the changes that one seeks in therapy. One must act differently to become different. You must have new types of experience to serve as memories to enable new thinking. As I was taught, "You can't think your way into a new way of acting, you act your way into a new way of thinking." You may have to think your way towards preparing yourself for new acts, but in the end, you must act.
All in all, these reflections on memory, in the therapeutic process, are private acts. The external validity of the memories is moot.
It seems to me that what you protest is the use of memory alone to cast blame. And in particular, the special case of recovered memories.
I agree with you that this use of memory, to cast blame, takes us towards the limits to which memory alone can reasonably be taken. Absent external validation or corroboration, we are left with the classic conundrum of who to believe. Judges, for example, make these decisions for a living. Again, for good or ill, this is sometimes all that we have to work with. An aphorism in the legal realm is that there are three sides to every story...your side, the other guy's side, and the truth.
Innocent people do get convicted, sometimes of horrific crimes for which there is no evidence beyond the circumstantial.
This leads me to what I see to be the nexus of our own disputations, fires. It would seem to me (I'm left with implications, as you do not present clear positions)....it would seem to me that you are suggesting that all criminal/civil actions for which there is no corroborative evidence be suppressed....that memory ought never to be given credence.....perhaps even in that private realm of insight-based therapies?
Yes, it is indeed possible that memories, even detailed traumatic memories, can be fabricated. However, it is also possible that fabricated memories can be distinguished from factual ones. That's why I suggested you follow up on those other memory researchers' work. There are distinctive attributes of false memories.
I have made explicit reference to this before, but in closing, I'm going to refer to it again. The issue of the veracity of memory is not a black and white issue. The limiting conditions are fully true and fully false, but there is an infinite realm of shades of gray, a continuum, in between. And it matters, too, to what purpose recall is put.
The collective of human thought is not a stable entity. Recent advances in DNA technology have forced us to reconsider eye-witness testimony, for example. What has come clear is that the very sort of specific recall most relied on in eye-witness testimony is also the most frangible, the most subject to external influence, the "minor" details that combine to uniquely identify a stranger, for example. That does not invalidate the entirety of the testimony. That doesn't mean the witness wasn't there, and didn't see what happened. Describing what happened with 100% accuracy is more difficult than anyone realized before. The devil is in the details.
We are still left with what we had before, though. There is no absolute test for credibility, yet we have no choice but to decide. The decision in criminal law is "beyond any reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt". In civil law, the decision is "on the balance of probabilities".
We have a legal system, not a justice system. We will not have the latter until we infallibility in the people who participate. Rest assured, those who need to know that, already do.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 8:00:48
In reply to Re: Take a test » lifeworthliving, posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 16:47:34
> > i'm confident that what i remember is true... even when i doubt.
>
> Yeah, but it's so easy to be fooled by one's "memories":Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 9:45:36
In reply to Re: Take a test, posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 1:55:20
Posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 11:24:30
In reply to Re: Take a test » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2004, at 7:50:03
> > ... and like a poster mentioned previously about the bank robbery, all might not recall the more "minor" details, or describe them the same way, but all would agree that they had witnessed a robbery. i'm confident that what i remember is true... even when i doubt.
> > > life
> >
> > Yeah, but it's so easy to be fooled by one's "memories":
> >
> > Great article:
> > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/39/features-abramsky.php
>
> Well, yes and no.
>
> I find it intriguing that Loftus was alleged to have manipulated the respondent in the legal action, the child's mother, "...Loftus went beyond the bounds of academic research, by “befriending” Jane Doe’s mother to the point where she would provide a willing audience for poetry the mother had written, by coaching her to believe she had not abused her daughter decades earlier..." Let's see, an expert in the manipulation of memory tampering with a witness' memory, to win a legal action, and to "prove" a point?
<snip>
Ah, you seem to have had a memory lapse!
You stated: "Let's see, an expert in the manipulation of memory tampering with a witness' memory, to win a legal action, and to "prove" a point?"Actually, the article reads, like you wrote:
"Loftus was alleged to have manipulated the respondent in the legal action, the child's mother..."
Alleged.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2004, at 11:51:07
In reply to Re: Take a test, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 11:24:30
> > I find it intriguing that Loftus was alleged to have manipulated the respondent in the legal action, the child's mother, "...Loftus went beyond the bounds of academic research, by “befriending” Jane Doe’s mother to the point where she would provide a willing audience for poetry the mother had written, by coaching her to believe she had not abused her daughter decades earlier..." Let's see, an expert in the manipulation of memory tampering with a witness' memory, to win a legal action, and to "prove" a point?
> <snip>
> Ah, you seem to have had a memory lapse!
>
>
> You stated: "Let's see, an expert in the manipulation of memory tampering with a witness' memory, to win a legal action, and to "prove" a point?"
>
> Actually, the article reads, like you wrote:
>
> "Loftus was alleged to have manipulated the respondent in the legal action, the child's mother..."
>
> Alleged.No memory lapse. Read the opening sentence of the paragraph now at the top of this post. I said that, "...Loftus was alleged...".
A lawsuit is an allegation, and the respondent's expert witness is alleged to have tampered.
The issue becomes one of credibility, not truth, as I argued in the rest of my prior post.
Lar
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 16:34:30
In reply to No (nm) » Shadowplayers721, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 9:45:36
If this research is true, then everyone has memory banks full of invalid data. This means that no one has the truth of their own history or of someone else's dirty deeds. So if I ask anyone of their history they can't really tell the truth. It's full of holes. Right? That's what the false memory believers want others to believe. One can say, yes I can remember my teachers, the street I grew up on, my playmates names, ..... Or do I? Do you? Can you be sure?
If you say you were abused from memory, that's not true.. it's full of holes... Remember everyone's memory is full of false information. I get it. Did you get it? Or did someone plant that info in your head? Yeah right. That's what my perp would love for me to believe. Get him off the hook and about 15 other suffers.
Posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 16:42:11
In reply to What all this repeated info is really saying...., posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 16:34:30
> If this research is true, then everyone has memory banks full of invalid data. This means that no one has the truth of their own history or of someone else's dirty deeds. So if I ask anyone of their history they can't really tell the truth. It's full of holes. Right? That's what the false memory believers want others to believe. One can say, yes I can remember my teachers, the street I grew up on, my playmates names, ..... Or do I? Do you? Can you be sure?
>
> If you say you were abused from memory, that's not true.. it's full of holes... Remember everyone's memory is full of false information. I get it. Did you get it? Or did someone plant that info in your head? Yeah right. That's what my perp would love for me to believe. Get him off the hook and about 15 other suffers.Nope. Real memories are the hardest to "bury", suppress, repress,etc... Ask any victim of a natural disaster or real abuse. There is no such thing as repressed memories (science based evience of). Memories created under hypnosis or coercion/suggestion are false (in the absence of brain trauma), as the research shows.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 20:12:32
In reply to What all this repeated info is really saying...., posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 16:34:30
Shadows,
It's important to note that in the study fires cited, there were only 11 participants, and 8 of them were men. Hardly a representative sample. The results cannot be generalized to the entire population or even to those who have experienced recovered memories. The results are hardly robust at this point. It's a preliminary study, not a stand-alone piece of work.gg
Posted by antigua on October 27, 2004, at 21:16:13
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Shadowplayers721, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 16:42:11
"Real memories are the hardest to "bury", suppress, repress,etc... Ask any victim of a natural disaster or real abuse. There is no such thing as repressed memories (science based evience of)."
I totally disagree.
See "Memory and Abuse" by Charles L. Whitefield, MD.
antigua
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 21:19:35
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Shadowplayers721, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 16:42:11
So, the point being is that people who undergo a traumatic event will always remember every piece of it. They will remember how it felt, smelt, taste, saw, froze, etc. They will never forget or repress anything? So, if a 3 y/o is raped, then the 3 year old would remember that? They are overwhelmed mentally and physically. They don't have the word capacity either to explain what happened. Their mind is still developing. Hmmmmm. I don't think so. They are preverbal. They will store things in their mind differently. They are developmentally different. Adults are seen as monsters. Things do go bump in the night, so...
Scientifically, we are still learning much about the mind. We don't know everything. Do you remember everything you did 66 days ago? I mean everything? We have memory stored in different ways. There is the routine things.
But, what if everynight at 9 pm, your father beat you for 10 years as a child. Would you remember every single beating and all the details forever? Would you remember every outfit he wore? No. You mind checks out. You wouldn't want to remember. This is your father for Heaven Shakes. You can't believe he is doing this to you. You can't stand this. You didn't want to be there. You didn't want to exist another beating mentally or physically. Yes, apart of you knows you went though it, but you can't remember all of that. You siblings can attest it happened too, but you mind will not bring it back - not one beating. You got the broken bones, but no memory. Remembering things is a bit of a choice. If something is too painful, we can consciously choose not to remember. Has anyone mentioned this in these studies? You couldn't force anyone to choose to remember years of beatings or rapes for anything in the world.
Amnesia makes sense in regard to traumatic memories. Who wants to remember the feelings of powerless, anger, sadness, beatings, rapes, or put downs as a child? Some folks just don't know how to deal with all that. hmmmmmmm Shadows, you have said enough. (This is just my suds on the boxes.)
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 22:31:45
In reply to Remembering is a choice, posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 21:19:35
It is scientifically proven that people with PTSD do have flashbacks. These memories are stored differently and do return. They do not return at a consciously chosen time. These are suppressed memories. They are very debilitating and very painful to re-experience.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2004, at 22:55:12
In reply to Flashbacks are not a choice, posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 27, 2004, at 22:31:45
> It is scientifically proven that people with PTSD do have flashbacks. These memories are stored differently and do return. They do not return at a consciously chosen time. These are suppressed memories. They are very debilitating and very painful to re-experience.
I'm very glad, and very proud, that you are speaking out. As a victim of childhood violence and PTSD arising therefrom, I know of the attempts to trivialize my experience, and to silence my voice. I don't need to know that every memory is perfectly accurate. I know what happened, and a sufficient number of those memories are burned into the psyche, irremovable, like tatoos. There are others, arising from conversations with my sister, for example.....I can only call those recovered memories, but I don't doubt them either. I trust my sister, as she watched me take it. She remembers my pain, and that's good enough external validation for me.
For my own purposes, I have never blamed my mom. I see that as serving no purpose but to damage another sad life even more. Believe me, her own thoughts are quite sufficient punishment, all by themselves. By not wanting to blame her, I am no longer bound in the role of victim. I am empowered to shape that old way into something more resembling of normalcy. I have no illusions to fix it, but by avoiding blame, I can focus on improving a bad place, a bad way of being. I make a lot of lemonade.
Rambling....tired....sleep meds kicking in....i hope i made some sense.
Lar
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 28, 2004, at 2:31:54
In reply to Re: Flashbacks are not a choice » Shadowplayers721, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2004, at 22:55:12
PTSD is real and very difficult to live with as I will illustrate in these examples.
My nephew had his hand cut in half on his job by a saw. Did he have flashbacks? Heck yes! He would wake up in the night screaming. He blocked out a lot of the actual accident.
How about my my friend's father that's a vet. He can't drive, because he sees the "enemy" in the rear view window. He can't go into WalMart, because he can't take hearing the people talk on the loud speaker. He would literally hit the floor in WalMart. He can't handle hearing lawn mowers either.
In regard to myself, I have mentioned in posts before about my difficulties. All I can say is to disbelievers is walk in my shoes and then see what you would say about memory and abuse. If you haven't experienced this, you don't know what it's like. Why argue what you don't have? I don't need or want another insensitive website talking about something that is dismissing the truth and suffering of PTSD. There is way more data to support that PTSD is real and people do repress memory.
Why did I repress? Because, I almost died from my abuse. This isn't a topic to make light of at all. It's very disabling. It's crippling. If you have it, God bless you and I pray you will be given help to get through this pain.
Thank you, Lar, for your kind words. You sound very strong and I pray for you to be surrounded with support, inner strength and health. You have a great attitude. You are making lemonade. I admire you.
Posted by Joslynn on October 28, 2004, at 9:19:02
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Shadowplayers721, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 16:42:11
The Good Samaritan helped someone who had been hurt. He didn't say, hey look, maybe you weren't really hurt and it's all in your head.
Sure there are some cases of false memories. But I am sure there are many more cases of people trying to deny their own memories of something that really happened.
Fires, would you go on a rape site and make it your personal quest to go on and on about the minority of cases where the accusations were false?
It's almost like a form of blaming the victim, but in this case, it's denying the victim.
By the way, I was not abused and don't have PTSD, but I just had to speak up.
Posted by Joslynn on October 28, 2004, at 9:28:22
In reply to Isn't there ENOUGH denial in this world?, posted by Joslynn on October 28, 2004, at 9:19:02
Posted by pegasus on October 28, 2004, at 11:17:19
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Shadowplayers721, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 16:42:11
>There is no such thing as repressed memories (science based evience of).
Well, actually, speaking as a scientist, if there no evidence of something, you wouldn't conclude that that thing does not exist. All you would conclude is that so far there is no evidence for it. There can be a lot of reasons for the lack of evidence besides that the thing doesn't exist. For example, the studies could have neglected to address important issues, or been otherwise flawed. Which seems likely to have been the case in at least one of the studies that you cited (according to GG).
It's really very hard to design a study that would allow you to conclude that something doesn't exist. You'd have to prove the thing to be missing in every concievable scenario where it could possibly exist.
pegasus
Posted by fires on October 28, 2004, at 12:50:58
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.. » fires, posted by pegasus on October 28, 2004, at 11:17:19
> >There is no such thing as repressed memories (science based evience of).
>
> Well, actually, speaking as a scientist, if there no evidence of something, you wouldn't conclude that that thing does not exist. All you would conclude is that so far there is no evidence for it. There can be a lot of reasons for the lack of evidence besides that the thing doesn't exist. For example, the studies could have neglected to address important issues, or been otherwise flawed. Which seems likely to have been the case in at least one of the studies that you cited (according to GG).
>
> It's really very hard to design a study that would allow you to conclude that something doesn't exist. You'd have to prove the thing to be missing in every concievable scenario where it could possibly exist.
>
> pegasus
>Yes, science can't prove a negative, but extraordinary claims demand exraordinary proof.
Also, it's not up to science to prove that I didn't see 1,000 UFOS last night, it's up to me to prove that I did. (Of course I only saw 999 ;))
Posted by antigua on October 28, 2004, at 15:12:30
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.. » pegasus, posted by fires on October 28, 2004, at 12:50:58
I can't thank you enough for speaking up. I tried being logical but it caught up with me.
I have been triggered terribly by all of this.
I can't explain how bad this has been for me. I've never felt this awful, and my T session this morning was indescribably painful. I'm going back later today.
I have to remember to keep myself safe. Keep myself safe.
Thank you so much for speaking up. You make me feel like I'm not all alone.
antigua
Posted by partlycloudy on October 28, 2004, at 15:28:22
In reply to Shadowplayers, Joslyn, Larry and all other support, posted by antigua on October 28, 2004, at 15:12:30
Antigua, sorry I wasn't able to participate in this thread as a support for you, but I be broken too.
pc
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2004, at 3:13:52
In reply to Shadowplayers, Joslyn, Larry and all other support, posted by antigua on October 28, 2004, at 15:12:30
I haven't exactly known how to respond to this thread, but I hope you all know that you have my wholehearted support. It pains me to think that people feel like they need to justify their experience here on Babble. I've never recovered any memories. I've had memories surface insistently at times, but they've never been anything that I didn't already know. But I have experienced things that other people might say can't possibly be experienced. And they might have tons of studies showing why it can't be true. But I also understand why the studies come to that conclusion. If you start out with a certain set of assumptions, and base the result on those assumptions, studies are inherently flawed. I always figure that there's too much we don't know about the brain and how it works, and too many endless permutations of nature and nurture to make global assumptions or definitive statements about internal workings of the mind in general and even moreso the workings of any specific mind.
Not everyone agrees with me, of course. :)
I know it's hard to be at peace when others are "doubting" your experiences. I know I torment myself by looking up stuff on the internet. But maybe we can support each other at accepting who we are and what we've experienced, and not allowing the words of others to shake that. (I'll need a lot of help and support in that area, myself.)
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 17:21:15
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Shadowplayers721, posted by fires on October 27, 2004, at 16:42:11
> > There is no such thing as repressed memories (science based evidence of).
Hi Fires,
When I was attending university (almost 30 years ago), a group of us ate our meals together every day in the main dining hall and became very close over the course of the academic year.
At the end of the spring quarter, we were about to have our last meal together for the year. Some of these dear friends were returning to their families and careers in other states, and we'd literally never see one another again.
As I was walking to the dining hall that day, carrying my Rolleiflex on a tripod to take a group picture of us all, a driver turned without looking into the crosswalk and I wound up sprawled across the hood of her car.
We had a nice lunch together and exchanged the expected pleasantries, but only towards the end of our meal (perhaps two hours later) did I suddenly remember that I had been hit by a car! Apparently I was so intent on the importance of this time with my friends that I had completely repressed my memory of the accident until I felt safe enough to allow it to emerge. (And no, I hadn't hit my head.)
Likewise, a friend of mine killed himself in late 1975, and a year or so later the woman he had been living with told a mutual friend of ours that I was pretending I didn't know who she was. Yet I had (and still have) absolutely no recollection of ever having met her, even though she knew details about me that suggested otherwise. Did the trauma of my friend's death cause me to repress all memory of her?
I had a friend whose partner was killed in a small plane crash in Los Angeles. She remembers getting the message from the Sheriff's office, and the next thing she remembers is that it was several hours later, and she was sitting in her car somewhere she had never been before, sobbing uncontrollably. She had no idea where she was or how she got there.
I have read a little about "false memories" and the problems created by them, but I have also witnessed verifiable repression of memory in myself and others, especially around traumatic events. So I have to think there is truth in both, and that we need to be careful not to make generalizations.Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by fires on October 29, 2004, at 20:39:15
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » fires, posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 17:21:15
Of course I can't prove that the facts you reported are incorrect. Then again you can't prove that aliens didn't abduct me last night.
Here's a concise and clear explanation of what I've been talking about:
from: http://tinyurl.com/3kwjw
________________________________________________>>>>Memory: How Reliable Is It?
Carol Tavris, a psychologist and author from Los Angeles, opened the session called "Memory: How Reliable Is It?" by answering: "Not very." Tavris has recently examined the "pop- psych" books about recovered memory. She found there was "no overlap" between what the books were promoting and what the academic researchers were discovering. Tavris metaphorically described memory as a putting together of tattered pieces that were initially experienced as seamless.
Stephen Ceci, a professor of psychology at Cornell University, and the session's first speaker, was praised by Tavris for his extensive research on memory. Ceci cited some common types of memory errors and their interesting though sometimes sad results. He provided examples to illustrate how remembrances of contemporaneous events can frequently be mixed together, how experiences can occasionally be remembered in a self-serving way, and how highly emotional or aroused states can cause false recollections.Ceci also described various studies in which the memories of numerous children were altered by repeated suggestive questioning. He pointed out that, according to national averages, children in court cases will often receive three and a half to eleven formal interviews prior to testifying. The number of informal, and possibly highly suggestive, discussions with worried parents and therapists is unknown. Given the fact that between 18 and 28 percent of children testifying in criminal and civil court cases are of preschool age, Ceci believes the use of children's memories in the courts is potentially very dangerous.
"Suggestive techniques work very well if there's something to elicit," Ceci concluded. "The problem is the price you pay if there isn't something there."
Richard Ofshe, professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, compared the proliferation of recovered- memory therapists to the grim lobotomy operations that occurred at the rate of five thousand a year during the thirties, forties, and fifties. "We are in the midst of a crisis," Ofshe said. "[Therapists] are subjecting people to the closest thing to the experience of rape and brutalization that can ever be done without actually touching them." He pointed out that some of these harmful persuasion techniques are being used not only by recovered-memory therapists but also in past-life therapy, alien- abduction therapy, and during police interrogations that, in some cases, have led to sincerely believed false confessions of crimes, including murder.
Ofshe said that prior to 1980 "no human society has ever noted this supposed ability to remove from consciousness vast amounts of information." He said that while there is no evidence for the existence of recovered memories, there is data establishing the dangers of hypnotherapy as well as the ease with which therapists can produce false memories. <<<<<<<<<<
_________________________________________________
Posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2004, at 21:56:11
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Mark H., posted by fires on October 29, 2004, at 20:39:15
Truly just kidding...But what was their planet like? (ducks)
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 2:43:17
In reply to Re: What all this repeated info is really saying.... » Mark H., posted by fires on October 29, 2004, at 20:39:15
> Of course I can't prove that the facts you reported are incorrect. Then again you can't prove that aliens didn't abduct me last night.
Please respect the views of others, be sensitive to their feelings, and don't compare their experiences to being abducted by aliens. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 3.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the 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.