Is Primal Therapy woo?

[Jeff Corey]

From the point of view of primal therapy, a lot of the symptoms would be dynamic. So at one point a need to go for a pee, at another feeling hot, or cold, tense, pain in throat.
I think that the symptoms could be anything, although a patient might have a long history of a particular symptom ,like a back pain, or head aches.

As they are not going to treat the symptom, there seems no need to determine "type"; for the primal therapy, the pain/feeling/memories associated with the symptom, is all the matters, and is the way back to the original feelings and trauma.

All a therapist has to do is be able to differentiate between a physiology, and a psychological problem, to detect symptoms; and I suppose the physiological diagnosis would have to involve a MD, which I'm sure they would refer someone to, if they suspected a physical problem.

Primal therapy is weird, but not this weird. Does this make sense to anyone else? Or is it just that my doctoral program didn't have a concentration in gibberish.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Primal therapy is weird, but not this weird. Does this make sense to anyone else? Or is it just that my doctoral program didn't have a concentration in gibberish.

well, I ain't trained in primal therapy, but perhaps you could actually break down what I said, and say what is wrong with each part?

 

[Dancing David]

From the point of view of primal therapy, a lot of the symptoms would be dynamic. So at one point a need to go for a pee, at another feeling hot, or cold, tense, pain in throat.
I think that the symptoms could be anything, although a patient might have a long history of a particular symptom ,like a back pain, or head aches.

That is not a very good start for any sort of examinantion. What kind of data are you looking at here? How old is it? Does it involve terms that are no longer in use?

When the term sysmptom is used, what category of compalint is being discussed in the material you are looking at?

Terms such as neurosis are not very helpful and rather outdated.

Please express how needing to go pee was presented in the material you are looking at.

What kind of behavioral and functional traits are we discussing here.

Could you please clarify?

As they are not going to treat the symptom, there seems no need to determine "type"; for the primal therapy, the pain/feeling/memories associated with the symptom, is all the matters, and is the way back to the original feelings and trauma.

With no evidence of behavioral imapcts or functional impact, how do you asses that there is a problem in the first place?

What criteria are being used to evaluate the symptoms, level of imapirment, functional imapct?

Sorry but you have yet to establish a causal relationships, 'problem', 'manifetations of problem', 'causes of problem', if you assume a trauma that isn't documneted, assume that it is a cause of undocumented issues, then what are you treating?

What metrics are you using?

You are talking about high level abstarcted concepts, is this the material from the old days before people stoped using vague terms like 'neurosis'?

All a therapist has to do is be able to differentiate between a physiology, and a psychological problem, to detect symptoms; and I suppose the physiological diagnosis would have to involve a MD, which I'm sure they would refer someone to, if they suspected a physical problem.

This is entrenched in the old antiquated language of dualism, there is no 'mental' issue that is NOT a physical issue.

What assesment tools are being used to determine why someone has sought treatments and is getting benefit from treatment?

How is a therapist to make above determination, what training, skills and tools are used?

 

[Dancing David]

well, I ain't trained in primal therapy, but perhaps you could actually break down what I said, and say what is wrong with each part?

So you are explaining something you don't understand, that doesn't help.

How is a determination made that there is a problem?
How is the resolution of the issue determined?

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

well, I probably am a bit behind the times; I've read some of Janov's early stuff, and stuff on the internet.


With determining that something is wrong, people usually self select, and approach the primal therapists; where upon they have an assessment interview. I presume only those that the therapist thinks can be treated, and have some sort of problem, are accepted into therapy.


regarding "dualism", surely it is considered a separate thing to have a tension head ache, on the one hand, and on the other a tumor; even if the two are linked in some way?



The pee thing, I just mentioned because in one of Janov's books, a patient, in a therapy session, reported that he needed to go to the toilet, and Janov told him not to.
It seems that under emotional pressure of primal therapy, some patients will try to discharge(excuse the pun) their tension etc, by going to the toilet; at which point I was, maybe erroneously, thinking of this need as a "symptom", of their psychological problem.

 

[Moochie]

well, I probably am a bit behind the times; I've read some of Janov's early stuff, and stuff on the internet.


With determining that something is wrong, people usually self select, and approach the primal therapists; where upon they have an assessment interview. I presume only those that the therapist thinks can be treated, and have some sort of problem, are accepted into therapy.


regarding "dualism", surely it is considered a separate thing to have a tension head ache, on the one hand, and on the other a tumor; even if the two are linked in some way?



The pee thing, I just mentioned because in one of Janov's books, a patient, in a therapy session, reported that he needed to go to the toilet, and Janov told him not to.
It seems that under emotional pressure of primal therapy, some patients will try to discharge(excuse the pun) their tension etc, by going to the toilet; at which point I was, maybe erroneously, thinking of this need as a "symptom", of their psychological problem.

During the three-week "intensive" I went through, I was restricted to a very meager diet (so I couldn't eat my pain away), I had to stop smoking; no stimulating drinks were allowed, including coffee and tea, no drugs except those prescribed by a doctor and were not for psychological symptoms, and during sessions I wasn't allowed to leave. If I needed to pee or defecate, a plastic sheet and towels were provided into which to do so. The room in which sessions took place was padded and soundproofed, and there was minimal, red lighting. The color of the walls, floor and ceiling was red.

When not in session (group or individual), I was restricted to my room in the premises, a room that was sparsely furnished and devoid of any distractions such as TV/radio/books. I was allowed to have photos of myself taken during childhood, and writing implements. I had to bring with me enough of the prescribed food to last the first week. During the second and third weeks I was allowed to replenish my stocks from a nearby shopping precinct once per week.


M.

 

[Dancing David]

That sounds very unsound, unhealthy and not based upon sound practice.

 

[Moochie]

That sounds very unsound, unhealthy and not based upon sound practice.

It was all of those things, but it took me a few years to realize that. Ah, but I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now.


M.


ETA: When I look back at that time, I realize I came through it relatively unscathed compared to many of those who went through it and ended up "buying" any type of woo the human mind is capable of devising. Popular among many were past lives, rebirthing, ESP, and so on. More than a few, finding that PT wasn't enough, went on to join various gurus, TM, variations on PT -- the endless search for something that probably never existed to begin with. Really very, very sad.

 

[Dancing David]

I think there is some benefit to learning how to cope with stress, but you can practice any number of disciplines or go back packing and have the same benefit.

i was not knocking on you, just the people who took your money.

 

[Moochie]

I think there is some benefit to learning how to cope with stress, but you can practice any number of disciplines or go back packing and have the same benefit.

i was not knocking on you, just the people who took your money.

I hadn't perceived your post as knocking me, but thanks for the thought anyway. And I agree with your comments about coping with stress. Actually, PT can have some benefit for people who for whatever reason are unable to cry. For them, being able to have a full-on, uninhibited cry can be stress-relieving in itself, as can a full-on, uninhibited belly-laugh.


M.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

During the three-week "intensive" I went through, I was restricted to a very meager diet (so I couldn't eat my pain away), I had to stop smoking; no stimulating drinks were allowed, including coffee and tea, no drugs except those prescribed by a doctor and were not for psychological symptoms, and during sessions I wasn't allowed to leave. If I needed to pee or defecate, a plastic sheet and towels were provided into which to do so. The room in which sessions took place was padded and soundproofed, and there was minimal, red lighting. The color of the walls, floor and ceiling was red.

When not in session (group or individual), I was restricted to my room in the premises, a room that was sparsely furnished and devoid of any distractions such as TV/radio/books. I was allowed to have photos of myself taken during childhood, and writing implements. I had to bring with me enough of the prescribed food to last the first week. During the second and third weeks I was allowed to replenish my stocks from a nearby shopping precinct once per week.

Moochie,

That's very interesting, thank you.

And my initial reaction was much the same as DD's...

That sounds very unsound, unhealthy and not based upon sound practice.

But then I thought that Janov's set-up is not so different to other available experiences. I have a friend who likes to avoid Christmas by spending that week in a Buddhist retreat (although she's not a buddhist). In her situation, many of your rules apply eg no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs, no telephone, no media, limited diet... and no talking !

But she can go to the toilet in private.

In fact, that is actively encouraged.




So, that's not unsound, is it ? It's a voluntary experience, and as long as those entering the retreat (and likewise, Janov's therapy-experience) are informed of the rules and the consequences of breaking them, it's not unethical.

(Just checking - in your therapy, Moochie, they did tell you the rules before you signed up ? And then, you could have refused to obey the rules at any time, and simply left the building, yes ?).


Is Janov's set-up (or the buddhist retreat's) unhealthy ?

Well, I can see how it might be rather challenging and distressing, to have one's self-medication and social props suddenly removed - and it might provoke a crisis of some kind...

... but the crisis might be necessary, and ultimately beneficial.

So I don't understand, why do you think it's unhealthy, David ?



On the other hand, I can see possible health benefits.

If a regular smoker stops smoking, their health will immediately improve - detectable improvement within 48 hours of cessation, other improvements at later intervals.

I would suggest that in the long run, the health benefit of this one simple step would outweigh any contrary effects of the course.

Especially if a regular smoker came out of a 3-week imposed abstinence and continued to abstain... then they're well ahead, in financial terms as well as health.

The same would apply for the breaking of other addictions.



I'm not defending the essence of PT here, or saying anything about the therapy that takes place within the environment that Moochie described.

I'm saying that the environment is important in itself.

And that PT might be ultimately beneficial, though not for the reasons it claims.


Gnu.

 

[Moochie]

Moochie,

That's very interesting, thank you.

And my initial reaction was much the same as DD's...

But then I thought that Janov's set-up is not so different to other available experiences. I have a friend who likes to avoid Christmas by spending that week in a Buddhist retreat (although she's not a buddhist). In her situation, many of your rules apply eg no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs, no telephone, no media, limited diet... and no talking !

But she can go to the toilet in private.

In fact, that is actively encouraged.

So, that's not unsound, is it ? It's a voluntary experience, and as long as those entering the retreat (and likewise, Janov's therapy-experience) are informed of the rules and the consequences of breaking them, it's not unethical.

(Just checking - in your therapy, Moochie, they did tell you the rules before you signed up ? And then, you could have refused to obey the rules at any time, and simply left the building, yes ?).

Yes, of course I agreed to the rules. My argument is that Janov's "therapy" is based on unproven theory, and that its practice can be detrimental to a person's mental wellbeing.

Is Janov's set-up (or the buddhist retreat's) unhealthy ?

Well, I can see how it might be rather challenging and distressing, to have one's self-medication and social props suddenly removed - and it might provoke a crisis of some kind...

... but the crisis might be necessary, and ultimately beneficial.

So I don't understand, why do you think it's unhealthy, David ?

There's enough literature out there to answer your questions. All I can tell you, based on my own experience, is that it depends on the circumstances of the individual undertaking this so-called therapy. While I don't feel that I was harmed by it, I do believe that some of my cohorts were.

On the other hand, I can see possible health benefits.

If a regular smoker stops smoking, their health will immediately improve - detectable improvement within 48 hours of cessation, other improvements at later intervals.

I would suggest that in the long run, the health benefit of this one simple step would outweigh any contrary effects of the course.

Especially if a regular smoker came out of a 3-week imposed abstinence and continued to abstain... then they're well ahead, in financial terms as well as health.

The same would apply for the breaking of other addictions.

Again, I can only speak about myself and my cohorts at the time we were in "therapy" together. My experience was that those who came in as smokers/drug-takers/drinkers eventually resumed these behaviors, in some cases far more than before. Those who didn't have these habits, generally left that way, but there were some who developed habits afterwards. Keep in mind I remained in association with most of my cohorts for many years after we'd all left the "therapy."

I'm not defending the essence of PT here, or saying anything about the therapy that takes place within the environment that Moochie described.

I'm saying that the environment is important in itself.

And that PT might be ultimately beneficial, though not for the reasons it claims.

Gnu.

I have no doubt that there are some who will insist that PT was and is beneficial for them, same as there're $cientologists who insist their "auditing" was and is beneficial for them. Both practices are based on unproven theories, and can be harmful to some people -- harmful in a way that conventional "talk" therapies almost never are.

I would not recommend PT or $cientology to anyone.


M.

 

[Dancing David]

Moochie,

That's very interesting, thank you.

And my initial reaction was much the same as DD's...




But then I thought that Janov's set-up is not so different to other available experiences. I have a friend who likes to avoid Christmas by spending that week in a Buddhist retreat (although she's not a buddhist). In her situation, many of your rules apply eg no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs, no telephone, no media, limited diet... and no talking !

Which part of that is like primal therapy?

But she can go to the toilet in private.

In fact, that is actively encouraged.




So, that's not unsound, is it ? It's a voluntary experience, and as long as those entering the retreat (and likewise, Janov's therapy-experience) are informed of the rules and the consequences of breaking them, it's not unethical.

(Just checking - in your therapy, Moochie, they did tell you the rules before you signed up ? And then, you could have refused to obey the rules at any time, and simply left the building, yes ?).


Is Janov's set-up (or the buddhist retreat's) unhealthy ?

Are apples and rocks the same, is one unhealthy and the other healthy?

Well, I can see how it might be rather challenging and distressing, to have one's self-medication and social props suddenly removed - and it might provoke a crisis of some kind...

... but the crisis might be necessary, and ultimately beneficial.

No evidence?

So I don't understand, why do you think it's unhealthy, David ?

Because it is not tending to support functioning and has no experiemental verification of benefits.

On the other hand, I can see possible health benefits.

Okay, where? data? Evidence?

If a regular smoker stops smoking, their health will immediately improve - detectable improvement within 48 hours of cessation, other improvements at later intervals.

Right, that is not the intent of primal therapy is it? To stop smoking?

I would suggest that in the long run, the health benefit of this one simple step would outweigh any contrary effects of the course.

When you show that it works as an effective treatment. I imagine they will relapse since you have just preveted them from smoking, not changed the addicted behavior.

Especially if a regular smoker came out of a 3-week imposed abstinence and continued to abstain... then they're well ahead, in financial terms as well as health.

Uh, IF IF IF IF, and another if (sorry, just wanted to say IF), if you look there are already effective ways to syop smoking, which is the what goal of primal therapy?

Does primal therapy even set goals with measurable outcomes?

The same would apply for the breaking of other addictions.

I suggest you read more on residential treatment and why it doesn't work.

I am a fan of relapse prevention planning myself. An in situ model. I don't think it's variation on CBT has much of a research base at this time.

I'm not defending the essence of PT here, or saying anything about the therapy that takes place within the environment that Moochie described.

I'm saying that the environment is important in itself.

Which has what to do with primal therapy, an imaginary treatment of imaginary conditions?

And that PT might be ultimately beneficial, though not for the reasons it claims.

Might, might might , might might.

God might exist.

CBT does work.

Gnu.

Sorry i disagree.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

David,

I wan't defending PT itself - I was merely curious about the environment (the initial conditions, the rules) within which it takes place.

It was those conditions and rules which you described as unsound and unhealthy.

And I was pointing out that the conditions one might encounter on entering a buddhist retreat were very similar.

What happens afterwards would be an entirely different matter, of course.



Moochie, I had a look at the web-site you linked to; I didn't know that the therapists used such aggressive tactics in confronting participants - busting, I believe it's called.

It sounds highly abusive and potentially very harmful to vulnerable people.

And therefore simply unethical (breaking as it does line three of the Hippocratic oath : Never do harm to anyone).




Thanks for the info.

Gnu.

 

[Jeff Corey]

D D,
The B part does work, but I'm a little skeptical of the C part. In applied behavior analysis, we get a baseline or multiple baselines and see if a treatment works. When you call something cognitive, you are dealing with private events that I can't count. So if I read a study that instructions to relax seems to work, I call that , http://www.revolutionhealth.com/drugs-treatments/jacobson-s-relaxation-technique

 

[Dancing David]

I understand the private behaviors part, in fact the baseline of symptoms is reported subjective, hopefully with a consistent baseline of data. Reporter validity is an issue.

I have used relazation techniques as well, but they are again subject to reporter validity. I have found them helpful in dessensitization aprroaches. But then it was someone with extreme behaviors as well. It may have just been a diversion, they reported anxiety and frequent suicidal ideation. The relaxation seemed to decrease the level of reported anxiety, but it may have been diversion.

 

[twerges]

Defending primal therapy

Hello everyone.

I read this thread with great interest, because I underwent primal therapy a few years ago and I remain a proponent of it. In my case, I underwent primal therapy after I had finished my undergraduate education in Psychology in a conventional program, at a reputable university, and while I was taking graduate courses in Psychology. So I was aware beforehand that primal therapy was hypothetical and that it lacked statistical evidence to support it; and I understood beforehand that there were other forms of therapy (like rational emotive therapy) which did have statistical evidence.

You may ask: if I knew beforehand that primal therapy had less statistical evidence of its effectiveness, then why did I undergo it? I underwent primal therapy because I believed it was a hypothesis which cohered with informal but obvious evidence in way which other therapies did not. Furthermore, I did not believe the evidence supporting rational emotive therapy and BT was convincing. Since I found RET and BT so unconvincing, I thought it may be reasonable to explore more hypothetical options; and I found the ideas underlying PT to be particularly plausible, for various reasons.

While I was a student of Psychology, the available evidence of psychotherapy effectiveness indicated that all psychotherapies were equally effective. Even psychotherapies based upon nothing more than nodding occasionally and agreeing (eg client-centered therapy) were as effective as the products of decades of academic research. Even psychotherapies which were intended to be placebos turned out to be as effective as RET. Furthermore, the evidence indicated, that experience and education of the psychotherapist had no effect whatsoever on therapy outcomes. Those facts were accepted by all my professors and, insofar as I could tell, were accepted by essentially everyone in the field. As a result, it is somewhat of an exaggeration when others on this forum claim there is evidence supporting CBT's effectiveness. There is not evidence supporting the specific efficacy of CBT. There is only evidence supporting the modest effectiveness of talking about one's problems in general to someone else who listens; and if the listener practices CBT in the mean time then it does not hinder a successful outcome.

(If I recall correctly, there was even a study done comparing the effectiveness of PhD psychologists against completely untrained people who lacked any formal education in psychology at all. That comparison was possible because, at that time, there were one or two US states (colorado?) which allowed people to practice psychotherapy without any formal training. Anyway, the outcome study indicated that completely untrained people were as effective as the PhD psychologists, which was unsurprising, given prior research showing that level of education of psychotherapists had no effect on therapy outcomes).

Obviously, the lack of specific efficacy of other psychotherapies is not evidence in favor of primal therapy. After all, primal therapy lacks even the research necessary to show that it's no less effective than anything else. In that regard, primal therapy is uniquely unsupported, since almost everything else has such studies.

Nevertheless, I felt at the time that primal therapy was an interesting hypothesis. Also, I felt that an interesting hypothesis was more compelling and more important, than a tired theory. I obviously would have preferred that there be studies investigating the effectiveness of primal therapy, before I underwent it. However, such studies would not be forthcoming, because Janov had made claims which were far enough out on a limb, that he estranged himself from anyone who could conduct such studies.

I realize that Janov has made some claims which inspire skepticism among others in the field of Psychology. I also realize that the onus is on Janov to prove his claims and to substantiate his remarks--it's not the responsibility of others to prove him wrong.

However, at some point, primal therapy is not about Arthur Janov. At some point, it's not really crucial what Janov thinks. The claim that primal therapy is reliant on Janov appears ultimately to be a kind of ad hominem. Even if Janov died before evidence were produced, that would not mean that the opportunity for gathering evidence about it had passed.

In fact, I suspect that primal therapy would be particularly easy to study. I believe so, because one of the tenets of primal therapy is that these "regressive" experiences happen only occasionally and are only effective under specific circumstances. As a result, it would be easy to envision a "sham" therapy in which people are encouraged to scream their hearts out, but without the regressive experience which is claimed to be the curative element.

Before I underwent primal therapy, I had many reasons taken from informal evidence which suggested to me that it was plausible. I will not restate those reasons here because it would require considerably more space to do so than would be appropriate for this message. However, if this message develops into a conversation, then I'll go into further depth about my reasons for believing that primal therapy was a compelling hypothesis.

When I underwent primal therapy, I occasionally had episodes in which I experienced the return of prior painful events (by "return" here I mean vivid images accompanied by the original emotional state). After I had those episodes, I experienced the immediate and complete resolution of longstanding neurotic symptoms and those symptoms have not returned to this day. Of course, there is the possibility of placebo effect here, because I had already assumed even before primal therapy that those symptoms were the products of painful earlier experiences. Nevertheless, my own experience was at least provocative to me because I would not have expected a placebo cure to be so durable.

Obviously, my own anecdotal evidence will not be convincing to the members of this forum, for various and valid reasons.

Nevertheless, I do hope that psychologists eventually conduct research on primal therapy. After all, primal therapy might have something to it. You never know.

Tom W

 

[Moochie]

Hello Tom, you might check out the site http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/ for an opposing view to yours. It makes a pretty good argument for the notion that PT is pure quackery.

Having been a victim client of it and a few other "therapies," I might add that an element of quackery is almost de rigueur for any "therapy" that aims to heal the mind. Of particular interest at that site are the sections titled "Your Stories."


M.

 

[Belz...]

Imagine any quack idea, and you'll find someone with the personal experience to "support" it.

 

[twerges]

re: defending primal therapy

Hello Tom, you might check out the site (DebunkingPrimalTherapy) for an opposing view to yours. It makes a pretty good argument for the notion that PT is pure quackery.

Having been a victim client of it and a few other "therapies," I might add that an element of quackery is almost de rigueur for any "therapy" that aims to heal the mind. Of particular interest at that site are the sections titled "Your Stories."

Hello Moochie.

I have already read the debunking primal therapy site. In fact, I check up on that site every once in awhile for changes. That is how I was directed here.

I have also read the "Your Stories" section.

I also noticed that you recommended the book, A New Guide to More Rational Living by Albert Ellis. I was given a copy of that book by a psychiatrist I was seeing several years before I underwent primal therapy (I too have undergone several psychotherapies). He gave me that book, and he gave me xanax 1mg. Although the book was fairly sensible, I must confess that the latter treatment was more effective for panic disorder.

I also read your description of primal therapy at an Australian center. Yikes! It almost seems as if they were playing a game of "one-upmanship" over Janov; if Janov won't allow you to smoke during the first 3 weeks, then they won't even allow you even to eat properly during that time, or to piss. Of course, the purpose of primal therapy is not deprivation. If those restrictions did not facilitate the return of prior painful feelings then there was no point to it, not even from the standpoint of primal therapy, which I realize you don't accept.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

Tom W