Is Primal Therapy woo?

[matty.the.damned]

You need to clock up 15 posts before the software will let you post links.

Look, I'm sure your experiences are very genuine and that you're a terribly nice fellow. I'm sorry that your mother was ill.

Nevertheless anecdotal evidence really doesn't prove anything. For the record we don't have to prove that you or anyone else is lying or telling the truth. The onus rests on the good doctor and yourself to prove your claims.

Thus far no evidence demonstrating PT to be a legitimate therapeutic approach has been produced, by you or anyone else as far as I can tell. Just because it makes you feel all nice and fuzzy inside doesn't mean anything really.

MtD

 

[Iconoclast08]

It's not easy to validate a reference - real world examples that you personally have had experience with is the *only* truly hard proof.

Not necessarily. Examples that stem from your own personal experience do not ipso facto constitute "truly hard proof" of anything per se. You could be operating under a misapprehension (Freud comes to mind among a host of others) and not even realize it due to what feel like sure-fire preconceptions and interpretations of observations. In short, your cognitive reality filter could be akimbo...slightly, somewhat, or maybe even severely so.

Secondly, you also run the danger of committing the "person who" fallacy in your dealings with clients, also known as abusing anecdotal evidence, which itself cannot be held up to scientific scrutiny unless you were to conduct methodologically sound idiographic (single-n) studies. Think Cuba Gooding, Jr., here: SHOW ME THE DATA! SHOW ME THE DATA!!!

Third, being a psychologist, surely you have heard of Campbell's triangulation. Extended into basic research parlance, there are such things as multiple converging lines of evidence from multiple scientists. The more people we have study and replicate something and arrive at a similar result, the more confidence we have in the result. Does this mean that we can't ever really trust those people? Taking an example from geoscience: just because you weren't among, for example, those geoscientists dating the earth at or around 4.6 billion years old using multiple converging methods (different radioactive isotopes and techniques), do you disbelieve that this is the true age of the earth because you weren't there to have done the radioactive dating yourself?

Closer to home: would you doubt the efficacy of CBT in treating phobias simply because you personally had never used CBT in treating someone yourself? Even if your case (or a number of cases you saw) failed to find efficacy, you could never conclude on that case or cases alone that CBT is not effective. Maybe you weren't doing it correctly, maybe your clients were especially resistent, etc.

Triangulation, baby. Not perfect, but it's a helluvalot better than clinical lore and anecdotal evidence.

I, to the best of my ability at least, do not seriously believe *anything* until I can see it for myself, first hand.

1. Have you ever seen electrons? If not, do you believe in those?
2. What about [insert name of a place in the world that you have yet to visit]? Does that place (or places) truly exist?

The entire psychotherapy world is, in itself, a failure in terms of really dealing with mental sickness (unless you think that getting better is equatible to behaviour control. I for one certainly don't).

First, accepting your label "failure" for the moment, why do you think that is? Personally, I think the inadequacies largely have to do with the fact that (a) we are dealing with intangibles (e.g., PTSD isn't reducible to a band of identifiable rogue viruses that fly off a traumatic event and infect people's brains) and (b) people are so heterogeneous that it's extremely difficult to deal with core causes (seems like this is what you are tacitly poking at if I am not mistaken). Treating symptoms certainly doesn't "cure" per se, but it can help make life one heck of a lot smoother for lots of people.

Second, personally, I think it's unfair to blanket label the "entire psychotherapy world", as you put it, as a "failure" in "really dealing" with psychopathology, especially since to the consternation of medical model advocates, we simply cannot "cure" mental illnesses like schizophrenia or severe depression the way we can cure a curable physiological illness…at least not yet (I have my doubts about this in the future as well). This seems like too lofty of an expectation given how young our field is. Many responsible clinicians do exist, and they do deal with these illnesses the best they can given the tools in their arsenal...tools which hopefully have good evidence to back them up (i.e., not primal scream, not EMDR, etc.).

Although I think we can agree that the field of psychology is a far cry from a mature social science, there are solid researchers out there who employ the scientific method to psychotherapy research as best as they can, and some do produce excellent work (e.g., Gerald Klerman & Myrna Weissman in the area of Interpersonal Psychotherapy, David Barlow in CBT, etc.). I just wouldn't be so quick to damn the whole enterprise on the basis of a *currently* unrealistic expectation.

 

[Andrew4589]

Thanks for that. Essentially I do agree with your points, in particular the 'triangulation' thing, and when theories lead to consistantly successful and precise predictions you can know there's probably a lot of sound truth in them, even if you haven't seen the "mechanics" first hand. I didn't go into your kind of detail because it takes so long to do so (as you know!). And yes, I agree that I can provide no substantial proof, other than to myself (never opposed that fact). Also, I do not "believe in" primal therapy as such because my experience with regression (or apparent regression?) is, as of yet, too limited - it is not validated to myself, but I believe it could, in part at least, be a very real possibility. I am very curious about it, and how far it might go. My main complaint is with the way people seem to have passionately written Janov off, and in my opinion on unfounded grounds [though yes, certainly Janov has made mistakes, and he often speculates probably a bit more wildly than he should...his theory seems to me just a 'current best attempt' to make sense of neurosis).

However, I will point out that my (and my mothers) experiences occured before I even took a serious interest in psychology - so it's not a suggested event/s. And they happened just like Janov said. If the event was not "real" and more imagined, then I would have to say that none of my experiences can be validated - or anyones. I also agree that conventional therapy has value, at least as a way to help manage neurosis (I probably should have clarified that). Oh, and don't worry about my mother (I certainly don't) - she recovered with only mildly affected feet.

 

[Andrew4589]

I disagree with none of this. In fact you're saying what I already said. And it doesn't make me feel "warm and fuzzy". To be absolutely honest, I would feel more comfortable if I thought that all this regressive stuff was pure b.s. But I don't.

 

[Andrew4589]

To quote myself: "I, to the best of my ability at least, do not seriously believe *anything* until I can see it for myself, first hand."

When I make statements like that I mean it in context, with respect to the content I'm refering to (of the type I thought people would assume). Of course, Iconoclast08, I believe in electrons though I can't see them directly. If I have to full-proof all my reasoning to that degree I would have to write a book to make a single simple point. Going into those kinds of abstractions can get a bit ridiculous.

 

[Cuddles]

It's not easy to validate a reference - real world examples that you personally have had experience with is the *only* truly hard proof.

Nope. Examples that you personally have had experience with are called anecdotes, and are not proof of anything, let alone the only proof. Relying only on personal experience pretty much guarantees you will fall for woo.

To damn Janov's work on unsubstantial grounds is just as unscientific and "religious" is to fall in love with it like a cult from a non-critical position.

Nope. Burden of proof. He makes the claims, it is up to him to provide evidence. Refusing to accept his claims, especially when they appear to be incompatible with known medicine and science, is the exact opposite of religious. It is accepting his claims with no evidence that is unscientific.

I, to the best of my ability at least, do not seriously believe *anything* until I can see it for myself, first hand.

Which is just plain stupid. Electrons. Africa. Pluto. Aardvarks. Gravity. Love. There are so many things that you either have not or actually cannot see with your own eyes. Even when you can see things for yourself, without scientific skepticism you are almost certain to be fooled by your own perception and biases even before you factor in people deliberately trying to fool you.

I only suggested taking an objective position with this, for those inquisitive people not threatened by what might be true.

No you didn't. What you suggest is taking a credulous position. There is nothing objective about personal experience.

Write Janov off if you can - that is, on real, hard grounds. Until then, I suggest you keep an open (or should I say just rational) mind.

The rational thing to do is to ignore wild claims until they actually provide evidence. Janov can, and should be, written off until he gives real, hard grounds for us to take him seriously.

 

[applecorped]

You mean because it's not a very good album, Robert ?

Surely not, but tastes differ, I suppose.

Anyway, Janov wasn't sayng that his undoubted influence on the album was "proof that their therapy works" - just that it helped Lennon compose the album, which is true.

And given that 37 years later, the album is considered by Rolling Stone magazine to be the 22nd Greatest Album Ever Made, I think Janov is entitled to feel some degree of satisfaction about his contribution to it.

Personally, I love it, harrowing though it is in parts.

Gnu.

Seconded.

 

[Iconoclast08]

My main complaint is with the way people seem to have passionately written Janov off, and in my opinion on unfounded grounds

It depends on what you mean by "unfounded grounds" (care to elaborate?). If, hypothetically, primal scream had a strong evidentiary foundation that people ignored, then yes, you would be correct. But I don't think this is the case. In general, primal scream severely lacks a strong base of empirical evidence to back it, and psychoanalytic journals have also turned a very critical eye toward it (e.g., see Psychoanalytic Psychology volume 20, pp. 717-726, 2003-- this is an oft cited review).

Also, I think there's a difference between "writing" someone off and remaining critical about unfounded claims until the evidence is in. If Janov were to come forward with strong studies (methodologically sound with adequate sample sizes and replicated across labs that are critical of PS) demonstrating its efficacy against controls and other supported therapies, then I would be open to that evidence. Until then, I remain skeptical of Janov, especially since after all these years, he has produced little in the way of convincing evidence.

I have to agree with a previous post: the burden of proof is on Janov.

To quote myself: "I, to the best of my ability at least, do not seriously believe *anything* until I can see it for myself, first hand." When I make statements like that I mean it in context, with respect to the content I'm refering to (of the type I thought people would assume). Of course, Iconoclast08, I believe in electrons though I can't see them directly. If I have to full-proof all my reasoning to that degree I would have to write a book to make a single simple point. Going into those kinds of abstractions can get a bit ridiculous.

Fair enough. However, I think next time you could be a little more clear about what you really mean. You made that point quite emphatically with the asterisked "*anything*", so I believed you.

 

[dudalb]

Screaming like a madman can be fun and It can provide some emotional relief but as a permanent form of therapy...forget it.

 

[Moochie]

I trust you chose "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" - Waters didn't need no stinkin' woo therapy to scream like that. Art was good enough for him.

(If he had childhood traumas to exorcise, he damn well used them as the basis for a torturous two-disc concept album...)

Yes, those poor, "suffering" artists.

You're right on that, but I think you really overestimate Lennon. I'm a big fan of his, and I think that in many ways he was a really smart guy, but let's face facts: when it came to woo, he was a born sucker. Sure, he tended to move on pretty quickly, but that was usually because there was some other woo coming round the corner with an even newer, even shinier bunch of crap.

Oh, I quite agree. As a contemporary of the lads, I was "into" woo just as much, particularly if it got me closer to certain someones in my social circle.


M.

 

[Andrew4589]

Yes, the burdon of proof is on Janov. I agree with that, and I did not get the impression that you personally (Iconoclast08) believed that Janov was a proven nonsense, as it stands. But to say, it's a very difficult therapy to clinically prove, even if it is real and effective. The interpretation of data is a major challenge because it's hard enough to define let alone measure mental health (in clinical terms). You can't measure a persons subjective sense of wellbeing. The effectivness of any therapy (other than the ones dealing with extreme and obvious disorders, where the objective is to just emotionally stabilise the patient) must be based on anecdotal evidence, because patient reports are the only substantial information that we have to go on, and patient reports can't really be measured to create 'hard data'.

Psychotherapy is in a similar position to school education. Education can't 'prove' its effectiveness without first prescribing what a child's development should be (and that can only be done by creating a subjectively derived model, of which has nothing to do with a scientific understanding of what a 'correct' educational development is, in itself), and reducing an individual's education to only that development which can be measured. Likewise, we just don't [clinically] understand mental health enough to even know what data we should be looking at -or what it ultimately means- for the objective of measuring the success of a given therapy. Again, unless we're only after behavioural modification (and there are political/commercial interests that are only interested in that), we need understanding before we can interpret the meaning of the data, and thus far we don't even have that, at least not to a substantial enough degree I believe.

I think neurobiology is the real hope for progress towards a substantial 'hard' science in psychotherapy.

 

[Moochie]

Yes, the burdon of proof is on Janov. I agree with that, and I did not get the impression that you personally (Iconoclast08) believed that Janov was a proven nonsense, as it stands. But to say, it's a very difficult therapy to clinically prove, even if it is real and effective. The interpretation of data is a major challenge because it's hard enough to define let alone measure mental health (in clinical terms). You can't measure a persons subjective sense of wellbeing. The effectivness of any therapy (other than the ones dealing with extreme and obvious disorders, where the objective is to just emotionally stabilise the patient) must be based on anecdotal evidence, because patient reports are the only substantial information that we have to go on, and patient reports can't really be measured to create 'hard data'.

Psychotherapy is in a similar position to school education. Education can't 'prove' its effectiveness without first prescribing what a child's development should be (and that can only be done by creating a subjectively derived model, of which has nothing to do with a scientific understanding of what a 'correct' educational development is, in itself), and reducing an individual's education to only that development which can be measured. Likewise, we just don't [clinically] understand mental health enough to even know what data we should be looking at -or what it ultimately means- for the objective of measuring the success of a given therapy. Again, unless we're only after behavioural modification (and there are political/commercial interests that are only interested in that), we need understanding before we can interpret the meaning of the data, and thus far we don't even have that, at least not to a substantial enough degree I believe.

I think neurobiology is the real hope for progress towards a substantial 'hard' science in psychotherapy.

This website does a pretty good job of debunking PT:

http://www.debunkingprimaltherapy.com

better than I ever could.


M.

 

[Andrew4589]

De-confusing the issue.

This is a general comment for interested people:

There are 2 questions to be asked if you're really interested in the "Primal Therapy possibility".

1. Is it true that repressed pain leads to the genesis of [most] mental sickness, creating tension and compulsions? (in my confident opinion, yes)

2. If so, is it possible to 'integrate' blocked pain so that the individual's reaction to repressed material is no longer neurotic, where the pain becomes just a memory of the past rather than a neurotic drive?

Don't worry about Janov's brand of therapy which may or may not be real and/or effective. It gets too [and unnecessarily] confusing. The regressive premise is what should be investigated. Because if it's real, then beyond all doubt it's huge in terms of its importance to the psychology world.

To me, these are the first questions to be asked.

 

[fuelair]

The other day I was listening to one of my favorite local radio shows/podcasts, Berkeley Groks and they had as their guests the creators of so-called "Primal Therapy." This show I consider to be rather respectable and they typically have guests that are informative if often a little dry. These two people, Dr. Janov and his wife, claim that their "revolutionary" method is supported by recent science in neurology and psychology, but it sounds just like regression therapy to me. They also claim that John Lennon was one of their patients and that his therapy made it possible for him to write the Plastic Ono Band album. It all sounded a bit suspicious to me, especially when they started talking about how pain from your past can be "healed" by returning to that time and screaming it out. It further tickeled my skeptic antennae when they talked about how only their method was the right way and that unqualified people could seriously hurt someone. In short, in started to sound like a cult.

Has anyone else heard of these people? They claim to have done "double blind studies" but I don't quite see how that's possible with something like this. If anyone has heard of this, especially anyone in the psychological or neurological professions, I am extremely curious to know if their claims are supported or if they are as cultish as they sound.

Yes, people blind to actual science tested people blind to the possibility ofwoo/fraud - double blind experiment! No support I've seen/read/heard in the app 40 years it has been around.

 

[matty.the.damned]

This is a general comment for interested people:
<snip>
1. Is it true that repressed pain leads to the genesis of [most] mental sickness, creating tension and compulsions? (in my confident opinion, yes)
<snip>

Andrew,

I think the real question is what leads you to this confident opinion? What basis do you have for holding this belief?

MtD

 

[Andrew4589]

That's fair. I have many observations, from my experience with others and myself, to make me come to the conclusion it's real. Documenting the basis of my conclusion would be quite a work in its own right. However, you can look at studies associated with PTSD, where the functional impact of trauma-repression is so obvious. Essentially, the only thing Janov (and myself) claims is that this 'PTSD function' occurs commonly in childhood, especially infancy. However, it is just more effectively buried, and our reactions more disguised. Not to suggest that that is in fact true, but is that assertion really so far out to believe? I mean we know that it does happen.

Here is one example (and I'm keeping it simple): A friend of mine had a night terror where a snake was down his throat, chocking him. He woke up and still felt the snake was in him, chocking him, and he ran to his friend (not me) to get help [at the point where he was awake, I would say he was having psychotic episode]. Going by the symbols and 'terror' reaction, it looked like infancy-based to me. He told me (after the event) that when he was a baby he got a springy toy stuck down his throat and nearly died. Just one example, but the link is pretty obvious.
When theories are real (enough), they tend to naturally prove themselves over time as real world things keep, inevitably, fitting the mold (so to speak). For me everything keeps on -over and again- fitting the repression-trauma mold, at times when it's so obvious that it's boring. But yes, that's anecdotal. It would not be rational for you to agree with me - not without your own observations.

 

[Andrew4589]

I will take more care in the future to not assume that people have my expressions in context to the material I'm talking about.

When I say Janov's work is "damned" by others, I mean they have (often) a pre-mature conclusion that PT is b.s. PT is not proven incorrect - nor correct.

You say there's nothing objective about personal experience? Then there is no objectivity at all, because ultimately everything is a personal experience - such as the experience of personally viewing data, or your own conscious reactions to a stimulant etc. How abstract shall we get? Personal experiences are real and "hard truths" in themselves, and we can rightly view them from an objective yet introspective position. For example I had a "primal" once. What should I do? Pretend it never happened because there is no data on it? Should I use the need for "hard data" to ignore what is literally staring me in the face; i.e. should I only see and think on the basis of collected data? Is that rational? Nope - that would be insane.

Janov's claims are not actually 'wild'. But I suppose that's subjective.

 

[Moochie]

I think what gets under people's skins is his (Janov's) insistence that he's found the "holy grail" of therapy, and has practically, if not in fact, trade-marked it, all without any evidence for the claims he makes.

Can you show how his methods are any more successful than any other methods?

M.

 

[Andrew4589]

I know (M). Though I think there's probably at least some truth in his therapeutic approach, I myself don't know how far regressive therapy can go. However, if he is in fact right, then so he should claim that his theory is, fundamentally, the only "cure". Because if the regressive process is in fact the only way that you can get rid of the neurotic-making impact of trauma, then he would actually be right in his claim. We can't expect him to mis-represent what he (may) honestly believe, and what his experience may, quite possibly, force him to believe.

-extending from my earlier posts, I would say that you would have to talk to people who have gone through Janov's clinic, to see what they have to say. That's as close as can be generated to substantial evidence for his therapy, minus having actual "primals" yourself. I myself will try his therapy in the future - I will see how good it is then. Maybe I can post how it goes, later?

 

[Moochie]

I know (M). Though I think there's probably at least some truth in his therapeutic approach, I myself don't know how far regressive therapy can go. However, if he is in fact right, then so he should claim that his theory is, fundamentally, the only "cure". Because if the regressive process is in fact the only way that you can get rid of the neurotic-making impact of trauma, then he would actually be right in his claim. We can't expect him to mis-represent what he (may) honestly believe, and what his experience may, quite possibly, force him to believe.

-extending from my earlier posts, I would say that you would have to talk to people who have gone through Janov's clinic, to see what they have to say. That's as close as can be generated to substantial evidence for his therapy, minus having actual "primals" yourself. I myself will try his therapy in the future - I will see how good it is then. Maybe I can post how it goes, later?

I've forgotten how I became aware of PT, but I attended a clinic run by a local (Melbourne, Australia) accredited* psychiatrist -- who up till then had a very good reputation for his adherence to the Leboyer method of birthing -- who had trained with Janov. While in the US, this individual somehow had a split with Janov, and went off on tangents of his own, along with some other US psychiatrists who splintered to found their own "primal" institutes. I guess there were a lot of ruffled egos at the time.

This psychiatrist (now deceased) founded his own "primal clinic" here and I was one of his early clients.

I spent over a year there and eventually left because it became clear to me that he was less interested in actually helping troubled people and more interested in furthering his own career. Contemporaneously, many associated with him split and founded their own factions, and got into some hideously woo concepts such as "past-lives," "rebirthing," and so on.

The psychiatrist in question went on to gather a coterie of followers with his stories of how "cells have a memory," and somesuch, and, well, you know. Or at least I hope that you know.

The point is, neither Janov, my psychiatrist, or any of those who splintered from the local PT clinic, could produce any evidence for their claims. And as far as I can see, neither can Janov, or you.

So, all I can say is, if you've been helped by the "therapy," good and well. I personally know many who haven't been helped at all, and many others who have reported their negative experience with PT on the internet, as at the site I linked to in an earlier post.

What do I think of it today? Steer clear. I've heard and seen too many negative stories to feel confident that this is any more than a forceful individual's personal agenda. People had "primals" long before Art appeared on the scene, only back then they called it "abreaction" or something similar.

And now would you answer the question I asked in my previous post? To wit:

Can you show how his methods are any more successful than any other methods?

Can you show any kind of results at all?


M.


* Here a psychiatrist must first be a trained physician; then they specialize in psychiatry. As such, they are able to prescribe medications.