The nice thing about a forum like this is that the context is there for anyone to see. The snippets I repeated are actually in the "Thank You Theresa' thread. I can't see how statements about financial and emotional investments could be anything other than commentary about the characteristics of the arguers rather than the arguments, but I'll let the readers decide for themselves. By framing the debate as being between scientific objectivity on one side and emotional investment on the other, you create a bit of a dead end. Anyone who takes the trouble to respond to the critics can be automatically dismissed as a fanatic. True, these were not your exact words and perhaps this was not your intent, but I am alerting you to the possibility that this is the impression you could have created.
I'll provide an example of something which has passed without comment (except from me, I think) in the EMDR debate. Devilly & Spence (1999) compared EMDR to a CBT variant in the treatment of PTSD. In that study they reported a higher dropout rate for the EMDR group. This dropout rate was cited by Devilly in their discussion and later by McNally in the VA National Center Research Quarterly (1999) as evidence that EMDR is less tolerable than CBT. When I read Devilly's article carefully, I discovered that the majority of these dropouts happened BEFORE the subjects actually experienced the EMDR. The dropout rate during treatment was actually lower for the EMDR group. Rich McNally is one of the most reputable researchers in the field and his remarks were sent to every PTSD program in the VA system, but tell me Don, was this good science? It's fine with me that Shapiro has her critics, that can be a healthy thing. But I really will not let pass unquestioned the idea that her critics are necesarily the more objective or more scientific parties.
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.