dr.syntax Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 I need to note that this argument for the validity of Primal Therapy is going to be my words and wording,not those of Dr. Arthur Janov himself. I may very well choose to quote him from time to time and will indicate when I am doing so in the customary way. I do not have Dr.Janov here with me to argue the case for himself ,here in this forum. Dr.Janov does an excellent job of doing just that in the many books he has written on this extremely important subject. A true CURE for neurosis was discovered and developed by Dr.Janov beginning back in the 1960s and his research and development of this revolutionary approach to the treatment and prevention of neurosis is an ongoing process . The name of this institute is: The Janov Primal Center: For Treatment, Training and Research . " Where Primal Therapy is a Science." The web address for the "Janov Primal Center " is: [ http://www.primaltherapy.com ]. A brief overview is presented on the opening page [ one short paragraph ] and many links to pertainment information such as " Supporting Evidence ",DrJanov`s Blog,the Legacy, and on and on. Myself and many others consider Dr. Janov`s discovery and developement of Primal Therapy to be among the most important discoveries of all time. I and others see it that way because of the enormous implications it holds for the relief of the suffering of mankind. For the first time ever the causes of and treatment for neurosis is here,now,real and available. This also provides for the prevention of neurosis to begin with. This is a subject Dr.Aletha Solter is an internationally renowned expert on who has written many books discussing and made a very many presentations about throughout the World. I wish to quote Dr.David A.Goodman,director of the Newport Neuroscience Center,San Marcos, California,USA. QUOTE: " Dr.Janov is the discoverer of a remarkable feeling therapy that taps into the feeling side of the brain. I will join the men and women from 21st Century Science and take part in this remarkable therapy, demonstrating the persistence and integtegrity of Dr.Janov"..." Read what Janov writes , he writes the truth about what happens in the brain." UNQUOTE. I hope all responders will take the time to click onto Dr.Janov`s website and at least have some minimal read by Janov himself before responding. Sincerely, ...Dr.Syntax -1
iNow Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 We've done this before, Dr.Syntax, and the thread was closed: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44515 Here, too: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44544 And, also here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43514 Either way, just to remain consistent, I'll share my own below... again. The Five Great Myths of Popular Psychology Primal therapy instructs clients to discharge their anger associated with painful emotions experienced in infancy, during birth, and even in utero. To do so, clients must yell, shout obscenities, and kick and hit objects (Singer & Lalich, 1996). <...> However, a large body of psychological research demonstrates that expressing anger openly is rarely psychologically helpful in the long-run, although it may make people feel slightly better in the short run. Indeed, in most cases, expressing anger actually results in more, not less, long-term anger, raising serious questions concerning the catharsis hypothesis (Lohr, Olatunji, Baumeister, & Bushman, 2006). In a variety of laboratory studies, participants who engage in verbal, written, or physical anger against an aggressor (for example, in a simulated game involving electric shocks) have been found to experience more hostility than participants who did not (Bushman, 2002; Lewis & Bucher, 1992; Warren & Kurlycheck, 1981). Either way, this site takes care of most of the faults: http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/ Here's more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_therapy Since [the 1970s], primal therapy has fallen into obscurity, in part because Janov never produced the outcomes studies necessary to demonstrate its effectiveness. <...> Primal therapy has not achieved broad acceptance in mainstream psychology.[19][20] It has been frequently criticized as lacking outcome studies to prove its effectiveness.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] It is regarded as one of the least creditable forms of psychotherapy.[19] Primal therapy has sometimes been criticized as shallow, glib, simplistic, or trendy.[29][30][31][32][33] It has also been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to transference.[34][35] It has also been criticized for its claim that adults can recall infantile experiences, which some researchers believe is impossible.[36] It has also been criticized as being dogmatic or overly reductionist. [30][37] <...> In 1996, authors Starker and Pankratz published in Psychological reports a study of 300 randomly-sampled psychologists. Participants were asked for their views about the soundness of methods of mental health treatment. Primal therapy was identified as one of the approaches "most in question as to soundness".[20] <...> Primal therapy is cited in the book The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. The author claims that all schools of psychotherapy, including primal therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and others, do not have scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo. [42] In the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, Timothy Moore wrote: "Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale." [43] <...> The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) Newsletter listed primal therapy, among other treatments, in the article "Dubious Mental Health."[45] That's A LOT of references in support of the opposition. Is there any amount of evidence that will convince you it's bunk? If not, then really... what's the point? 1
dr.syntax Posted November 3, 2009 Author Posted November 3, 2009 We've done this before, Dr.Syntax, and the thread was closed: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44515 Here, too: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44544 And, also here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43514 Either way, just to remain consistent, I'll share my own below... again. The Five Great Myths of Popular Psychology Primal therapy instructs clients to discharge their anger associated with painful emotions experienced in infancy, during birth, and even in utero. To do so, clients must yell, shout obscenities, and kick and hit objects (Singer & Lalich, 1996). <...> However, a large body of psychological research demonstrates that expressing anger openly is rarely psychologically helpful in the long-run, although it may make people feel slightly better in the short run. Indeed, in most cases, expressing anger actually results in more, not less, long-term anger, raising serious questions concerning the catharsis hypothesis (Lohr, Olatunji, Baumeister, & Bushman, 2006). In a variety of laboratory studies, participants who engage in verbal, written, or physical anger against an aggressor (for example, in a simulated game involving electric shocks) have been found to experience more hostility than participants who did not (Bushman, 2002; Lewis & Bucher, 1992; Warren & Kurlycheck, 1981). Either way, this site takes care of most of the faults: http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/ Here's more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_therapy Since [the 1970s], primal therapy has fallen into obscurity, in part because Janov never produced the outcomes studies necessary to demonstrate its effectiveness. <...> Primal therapy has not achieved broad acceptance in mainstream psychology.[19][20] It has been frequently criticized as lacking outcome studies to prove its effectiveness.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] It is regarded as one of the least creditable forms of psychotherapy.[19] Primal therapy has sometimes been criticized as shallow, glib, simplistic, or trendy.[29][30][31][32][33] It has also been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to transference.[34][35] It has also been criticized for its claim that adults can recall infantile experiences, which some researchers believe is impossible.[36] It has also been criticized as being dogmatic or overly reductionist. [30][37] <...> In 1996, authors Starker and Pankratz published in Psychological reports a study of 300 randomly-sampled psychologists. Participants were asked for their views about the soundness of methods of mental health treatment. Primal therapy was identified as one of the approaches "most in question as to soundness".[20] <...> Primal therapy is cited in the book The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. The author claims that all schools of psychotherapy, including primal therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and others, do not have scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo. [42] In the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, Timothy Moore wrote: "Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale." [43] <...> The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) Newsletter listed primal therapy, among other treatments, in the article "Dubious Mental Health."[45] That's A LOT of references in support of the opposition. Is there any amount of evidence that will convince you it's bunk? If not, then really... what's the point? REPLY: You never quote Janov, only his detractors. What they say is their opinion, nothing else. And as far as quoting so called authorities goes, you yourself pointed out to me that is not proof of anything. Darwin is an excellent examlple of how valid the opinion of authorities is. Not much. Authorities` historical record regarding revolutionary concepts that challenge their self interests is a poor one at best. All you have ever done is to find some detractor to quote. For someone as famous as Janov there will always be some one some where to quote a derogatory statement by. In fact it was you yourself that said essentially the same thing in my posting about Einstein. Always this double standard with you. When you do it ,it is all supposed to be some valid proof of something, when I did it I was a racist and some other things I cannot recall off hand. No, you are not going to do this to me. I could dig up an endless list of Einstein detractors. They at least had historical accounts to reference. Those you refer to have only their opinion and nothing else. I have never heard of any of them. Unless you are willing to pick out a statement by Janov himself, and discuss that with me I see nothing to discuss with you AND WILL NOT. D.S.
iNow Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Those you refer to have only their opinion and nothing else. Actually, I cited peer-reviewed articles showing the foundation of primal therapy to be in question. I cited studies which show the process used by primal therapy to have negative therapeutic outcomes. On top of that, there is no scientific backing to Janov's claims, and his style/technique has never been shown to be effective.
mooeypoo Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Dr Syntax, two other threads about this were closed - which means you are resurrecting a closed thread, which is a nono. On top of that, you are not supplying any new evidence or reference to this already-discussed issue. Dr Syntax, any new thread you open about primal therapy that has no *NEW INFORMATION* will be deleted outright. Only open a new thread about this if you are absolutely certain you have some *new* information to provide. Posting the same link again will not suffice. Not by a long shot. Start following our rules, please. This thread is closed pending moderation review. ~moo
Recommended Posts