Created May. 11, 2014 green 005,000 brown 720,000
ARTICLE BY FORMER SENIOR PRIMAL THERAPIST
The Beginning - 1970
A New Beginning
Primal Therapy Science?
IS PRIMAL THEORY REALLY UNFALSIFIABLE?
Peer Review and Replication
Testimonials and case study evidence
This article is not written by me, but by the above in the Title section at top, Curtis Knecht. I publish it here so I can comment on it as it calls for and because Curtis did not separate the body of text into paragraphs, which makes reading unpleasant and a struggle; and recall is much more difficult because no paragraphs or sub-titles stand out. But the experience of Curtis is valuable and vital to the subject of Primal Therapy or Dr. Arthur Janov. So "fair use" under copyright law is claimed by me.
I have only discovered this work in the last 4-6 months. It was unknown to me before that. So all that I had written agrees with this, but I did come up with what I did, independently of Curtis Knecht and "Zonbalance" who has his piece following this first one on this same article/page. So these 2 would have to be added to a growing list of discontents with Janov's hype and errors.
Janov has made some valuable discoveries, but not without errors, not purified and certainly with flaws that desperately need corrected. We critics of Primal Therapy are only doing our job in separating truth from error, to the betterment of the state of psychology and science, as well as better enabling people to overcome the crippling effect of life that seem to leave us all damaged and unhappy at some point, before rising above it, for those of us that do rise above it.
Primal Therapy -- An Experience with Enchantment
by Curtis Knecht, MFCC
Copyright Curtis Knecht 1991
The Beginning - 1970
Back to Top
The year was 1970. Nixon occupied the White House. His troops occupied Vietnam and Cambodia. A decade of the civil rights movement, assassinations and social upheaval had confused and polarized American families. Feminists attacked the male power elite. Parents and kids glared at each other across a "Generation Gap." The American dream was under siege. Best Picture that year was "Patton." The Beatles had broken up. Baby Boomers struggled into an uncertain adulthood. Gasoline contained lead. DDT was thinning the eggs of the Brown Pelican. LSD was expanding the consciousness of young kids. It was a time of extremes.
>>It goes without saying that the 60s and 70s brought many changes and really, primarily, breakdown and chaos. Many rip-off movements, serial killers, cult leaders and cults, lots of predators. We were an innocent generation in those days, quite a bit naive, maybe even gullible, but we soon wised up. Anything that came about during that time ought to be carefully examined and scrutinized, just to be safe.<<
On the national bestseller list was a book titled The Primal Scream written by a Los Angeles psychologist named Arthur Janov. Subtitled "Primal Therapy: The Cure for Neurosis," it described a process which transformed people into "a new kind of human being," not only curing their neuroses but inspiring them to "make a new world in which to live -- a real world designed to solve the real problems of its inhabitants." During a therapy session one day, Janov heard a client scream from the depths of his soul. He described it as "a piercing, deathlike scream that rattled the walls of my office." Janov followed the path of that scream to discover something he called Primal Pain.
>>I read the Primal Scream in 1987. I was blown away by it. While I have developed reservations about some of it, I have not lost faith that Janov has discovered some important things and done some good research. But he has failures, too. In a field where the human is the subject, one has to keep a very open mind as one progresses in any direction that attempts to understand and treat the human mind and spirit. Janov was much more optimistic and open minded in that 1st book than he is today.<<
This Pain, Janov
hypothesized, gets locked into childrens' unconscious minds as a way of
protecting them from trauma and deprivation which they cannot handle. It remains
locked in the child's unconscious being as he grows up. From this forgotten
place, it causes endless suffering (neurosis) until it is released in an
emotional experience of great intensity which Janov called "Primalling."
Through this "Primalling," adults re-experience their original
childhood traumas and deprivations. It's an intense feeling process that frees a
person from the destructive effects of his unconscious Pain. Janov wrote that
he'd developed a predictable, scientific method of eliciting this Primal
experience in people. His therapy, he said, was "revolutionary, because it
involves overthrowing the neurotic system by a forceful upheaval. Nothing short
of that will eliminate neurosis."
It was a dangerous process, dealing, as it were, with the nuclear power of the psyche. Only Janov-trained therapists were competent to do it. The results, however, were stunning. Gone were depressions, addictions, tension, marital problems, phobias, overwork, sexual malfunctions and perversions, criminal behavior and psychoses (these took a little longer but eliminated the need for drugs). Even homosexuality, which Janov defined as a "disease" and "the denial of real sexuality," was being cured by his therapy. Results were being attained within weeks and months.
>>It is a very dangerous process and not perfect, either. Indeed, I do not recommend therapy as a rule now. I believe that many could do make vast improvements without a therapist. But the need for a human to sort of substitute for parents may be too strong in most, and so therapists, whether they want to or not, end up with transference on their hands and their patients relating to them as parents and authorities. It is a risky situation, from either viewpoint.<<
Janov flatly stated, "By the time someone has reached his eighth month (of therapy), he is generally well." This meant, according to Janov, that a person would never need therapy again. It was quite a contrast to the years required by the psychoanalytic therapies. To replace neurotic suffering, there emerged a "tensionless, defense-free life in which one is completely his own self and experiences a deep feeling and internal unity." Like the Velveteen Rabbit, one becomes Real.
>>The above is where Janov made his initial and strongest wrong turn at the proverbial fork in the road. He's been all forked up ever since. This is the big lie, really!<<
From all parts of the world, people came to Los Angeles to undergo Primal Therapy at Janov's Institute. In 1970, John Lennon and Yoko Ono came. They spoke of their experience with enthusiasm. There was a lengthy waiting list to get into the therapy despite the large fee which was paid in advance. It was an American phenomenon, the hula hoop of the 70's.
>>I first bought the Primal Scream in a used book store in 86, after having seen a series on PBS Nature, on Naturalism progressing to Evolution and Psychology. Darwin noted the much stronger emotional expressions of infants compared to adults. Animals were noted to have more intense expressions, so I bought the Primal Scream, thinking it might have some input on these observations. But I did not read it till Feb or March of 87 on. I saw a special on PBS on John Lennon in late 86, after having bought the book, and the documentary brought up Lennon reading the Primal Scream and seeking treatment with Dr. Janov. I knew I was on to something. But it still took till 87 to begin.
Janov promised a lot and made huge brags such as totally curing neurotic behavior, as if primal pain caused it all, and that our minds and thinking had no "mind" of their own, apart from primal pain. More later.<<
I remember clearly the
Sunday eighteen years ago when I read Janov's book and knew without question
that Primal Therapy was the answer for me. It was January, 1973. I was an
idealistic, 24-year-old white man from an affluent, well-educated, and very
troubled family -- one of the heirs to the American dream of my parents'
generation. I was confused by childhood demons and changing times. I was
terribly unhappy with my life and desperate for a change. I'd tried psychedelic
drugs, "counterculture" life, conventional psychotherapy, even college
and hard work. Nothing quelled the pains in my heart. Janov spoke to that
torment and confusion, my deep longing for guidance and initiation. It promised
an arduous inner journey, heroic battled with my worst fears and deepest
desires, then the rebirth of a Self filled with power, freedom, and
Too Many Promises
Janov made it clear that Primal was the only way to achieve what I desired, and I believed him. His words made such sense to me, and the testimonials of his patients confirmed it. I had to go, no matter what. I applied to enter the therapy and was quickly accepted. In May, 1973, I left my work, family, and friends to move to Los Angeles and enter the Primal world. I thought that within six or eight months I would return home, transformed by Janov's remarkable discovery. Nine years later, February, 1982, I emerged. It had certainly been an odyssey.
>>8 months turned into 9 years.<<
During those years, I ate, slept, breathed, and lived Primal Therapy. I entered as a patient and soon became a therapist. I married a therapist, and all my friends were therapists. I returned to school to receive the degrees and license which would permit me to practice psychotherapy in the state of California. I did this so I could be a Primal Therapist. I believed it to be the only real work anyone could do.
Arthur Janov trained me, challenged me, abused me, and turned me into an expert Primal Therapist. I became a trusted lieutenant, Senior Therapist, privy to the inner circle. I shared a special power: I could Feel. I shared a special knowledge: I knew how to make others Feel. I believed deeply in what I was doing, even when outwardly critical. I held to aspects of that belief with a tenacity which still amazes me.
>>The above is important. Janov is always harping on the fact that there are no qualified therapists outside his practice and that they should be be trained by him. But a number of people were trained by him and then moved on. but He excuses this by saying the therapy has changed and so their ability is no longer valid or trustworthy. This is nonsense. If Janov could modify or advance his therapy, and its not his for ownership, it belongs to the greater world of science and any practitioner of that particular science. All are capable of modifying or advancing the theory and treatment or it is not a science or safe. It is a cult.
This exclusiveness bothered me from the very beginning, when I had finished the Primal Scream or Prisoners of Pain just after that, also in 87. For one, I had fallen away from Jehovah's Witnesses by that time, and they were famous for claiming to be the only ones with religious truth of the Bible, and I found that to be sheer nonsense. So this was a sore and sensitive spot, to be sure. I did not like anyone making claims that were identical to what the Pope has long claimed in Catholicism. Now Janov was joining the Pope and Jehovah's Witnesses in his arrogant claim. That was a tough pill to swallow and I was not swallowing it.<<
I learned much on my journey. I learned with skill and precision how to express my deepest feelings, and how to elicit that expression in others. Grief, rage, fear, terror, and desire were daily companions (either mine or someone else's). Primal Theory and its practice became second nature to me. So did the workings of the Primal Institute. I learned how the therapists lived and worked and ran the business. It was a small, insulated, and intense world which Art created and we maintained. It was my world, and I learned it well.
>>Arthur and his wife of the time, Vivian, started the Primal Institute. When he left her for another woman, France, he started a new place of his own and seems to have left Vivian the previous practice which still operates today and they also refuse to comment on anything to do with differences in therapeutic approaches as compared to Art's.
Curtis speaks of an insulated world. Correct. Art has not founded a science, per say. He claims total ownership of it, as far as I am concerned and even tried to patent and copyright it. The court struck it down, however. Anyone who practices apart from Janov will receive his disapproval. For whatever Janov has correctly discovered or not, he is the primary force no holding it back and tarnishing it.
Normal science and scientist should not be trying to own and control their field of science, although in reality, there are always controllers in every science, but they pretend there is not. Most controllers exist to hold a science back, rather than propel it forward and advancing it.<<
Ultimately, I learned that Janov's promise was a lie. At times a wonderful lie, a well-constructed lie, even a lie which contained pockets of truth which could be fresh and effective in their application. But at base-root-bottom, it was, and still is, a nasty little lie. The therapy did not work. Primal Therapy did not cure neurosis. Art's promise drew people into a closed therapeutic system wherein therapists used experimental techniques to elicit intense and painful experiences in their patients. Patients' defense systems were broken and assaulted in many ways -- some quite abusive -- in order to elicit the Primal experience. Their experiences could be real and powerful. They could easily convince one of the veracity of Janov's discovery.
>>The key is in the definition of neurosis. Janov redefines the text definition of neurosis. But allow me to try to state simply what neurosis is in non-technical, non-clinical jargon. When behavior or choices are not rational, nor effective, nor productive, and be quite harmful, then the person can be said to be neurotic. Even though a=b and b=c, for some reason, a does not = c, even though b does and a=b. Irrational!
Primal therapy can relieve pain in
many circumstances and this can be quite beneficial. Pain is often a cause of
many irrational behaviors.
But . . . not all irrational behaviors not does getting rid of all pain prevent further irrational behavior. So on this point, Knecht is right. And in those early days, Janov used tactics to bring out pain that were harmful and counter-productive as Knecht will get to. But I am not convinced that Janov does not used "breaking" techniques any longer. Maybe not often, but I suspect once in a while. He was trying to break me on his blog. So it is not past him to used it, perhaps as a way of retaliation, maybe.<<
However, there was no "scientific and predictable" curative process occurring. It was hit and miss. Positive changes couldn't be attributed to this Primal process with any certainty. Negative changes could. People became dependent on the therapy, addicted to "having Primals." Their lives took on a similar, Pain-oriented style. They were the walking wounded. They focused only on Pain, spoke a common "Primal" language, and followed the Primal rules. It created a narrow and, ultimately, destructive mentality.
>>Janov presents nothing but his side of the story, a rosy presentation of PT. He does not tell about his failures, or non-successes. He does not present all the evidence and data. He is selective in what he reports. This gives us a warped distorted view of what PT is or can be. It is in essence, a lie, a misrepresentation. It is an incomplete picture and this has long been my suspicion. Now I have verification from another source regarding this. Reliving and relieving pain can help some, maybe help quite a bit or hardly help at all.
In my article on Holistic Therapy, my complaint is that reason, logic, strategy, choices based on those, these can have dramatic effects on our lives and results. No pain might come with them, but we might experience pain in making a bad choice based on bad ideas. Some need to get some pain out. Some need to correct bad ideas. Sometimes, you'll need to alternate focus. But as I see it, just trying to get at pain in stupid. Getting at pain will not necessarily lead to any ideas getting corrected. And ideas can be corrected without the experience of any pain or its release.
So why not pursue both, or why not take a look at all your ideas, beliefs, thinking, choices, strategies, and see if they stand up to cross-examination and criticism. this is what philosophy is all about. And Janov will not go near philosophy. e is either afraid of it or not very good at it, and he is not good at it, then this is where he has a problem that needs corrected. He needs to learn to think and reason better.
Janov has missed at least 50% of psychology by not giving attention to self-analysis, especially of thoughts, ideas, beliefs. We are born and inherit a complete system of beliefs and ideas; from parents, religious leaders, politicians, teachers, the media and peers, too. Many people need help in beginning to examine what they have inherited. And many who embark on this thru therapy, make many new and amazing discoveries and new possibilities. Janov never found that "awakening," so he has never believed in it. And as hard as he fights it, I don't believe he ever will find it.
We have all been conditioned without ever being aware of it. We need to wake up and realize that we have inherited a full system that we never questioned because we trusted those who gave them to us. Time to se if they did a good job or a bad job or a little of both. Janov dismisses this as "talk therapy." Its not talk therapy! It is an examination of what we think and believe, and why we think and believe it, and decide if those are worth keeping or worth rejecting.
In my own case, I have rejected a good deal of what I was brought up with. I ended up building my own set of ideas and beliefs that I felt were more beneficial and productive than what came to be by inheritance.<<
1. The majority who came for the transformation seemed to leave the therapy feeling they had experienced something important, but certainly not what had been described by Janov's books.
2. Most did not deal with the original issues which had brought them to the
3. Others left after becoming more fragmented and disoriented than before, with at least two becoming violent toward the Institute.
4. A significant number became so distraught that they killed themselves.
>>The above statements, 4 in number, reveal many facts that Janov has never mentioned to us. Was he hiding from us? Was he embarrassed? He was with-holding, for sure. It is pretty much lying, as I see it.
So people did not get their original issues fixed, which was their initial goal. That sounds like failure to me. Some became worse rather than better. The problem is that psychology is not the simple formula that Janov proposes. Nothing in life is simple, quick, or easy. Whatever you choose, it will likely consume your whole life pursuing it. We can not go thru 20 or 30 years of life and not have plenty to fix, which would take at least another 20 or 30 years, if not far longer. That does not leave too much time left over.
But I will say, that if you examine your beliefs and ideas and motives, you will find the path of least resistance, and the best and perhaps quickest means of fixing and improving your life some. Better than any other method, anyway. But life will always throw us lots of challenges. This much is absolutely guaranteed. To quote Charlton Heston's Taylor in Planet of the Apes, "Its a mad house, a mad house!<<
Janov claimed to have discovered the Truth about human Reality. I discovered that he ran an extremely profitable business for himself and a chosen few based on a promise that was never fulfilled. Technically, it was a therapy business, but mostly it was a cult movement with all the characteristic dynamics.
>>Knecht was about to tell you why Janov was a cult, but I must interrupt, first. Could the great visionary and prophet Arthur Janov be nothing more than a cult leader and running a money making scheme? I think there is a lot of truth in that. But, Janov has revealed much interesting clinical research and influenced other research. I personally think it would be a mistake to just write it all off as nothing at all. I do not believe it is nothing at all. Just very recently, Janov pointed out, and correctly I might add, that research gets reported nearly every day that back sup and verifies what he has been saying and promoting and I definitely agree. I see it myself all the time.
We do a lot of harm to our kids and do not understand how to treat them or raise them, and they will suffer throughout their lives for it. Now lets look at the cult charges. I will address each one, at a time, after the list as a whole remains uninterrupted.<<
Those cult dynamics were:
A Charismatic leader or Central Belief: Janov and his "Discovery" that the
expression of repressed pain cures all ills.
it set itself up in rigid opposition to the values of the dominant culture and
all of psychotherapy.
it was the Only cure; Primal possessed the Truth; Janov said, "The Truth
(Primal) is highly intolerant of untruths (everything else)."
many rules and regulations for correct "Feeling" behavior.
emphasis on feeling and experience; anti-intellectual.
this special community possesses the Truth; people were always attacking Janov
out of their ignorance.
if you don't do Primal Therapy, you'll be neurotic forever, doomed.
Esoteric: the inner truth shared by therapists was different than the outer truth presented to the patients and the public.
A Charismatic leader or Central Belief: >>The total definition of Janov might be out of line, but there is an essence there that is correct. What is not determined by Janov or Knecht, is whether that belief is correct or not. Because that makes a difference in whether it is a cult belief or a justified by science theory or at least a principle.<<
Oppositional: >>are the values of our dominant culture screwed up? I believe so. Am I a cultist? As sick as the world is, I'd be horrified if most were not displeased with it. Yes, I am horrified, indeed. Is Janov in rigid opposition to psychotherapy? He is, but I fault both sides, since each lacks what the other has. I fault both and promote my own ideas and thinking. So I can not fault Janov here entirely. Psychotherapy is a mess. It is very politically controlled.<<
Exclusivistic: it was the Only cure; Primal possessed the Truth. >>This is called intolerance and yes, Janov is intolerant of any deviation from his precisely defined prescriptions for a "cure." Of this he is fully guilty as charged, from my standpoint.<<
many rules and regulations for correct "Feeling" behavior.
emphasis on feeling and experience; anti-intellectual. >>Whoa!!!
That is a big 10-4, good buddy! So completely anti-intellectual that he should
be burned that the stake (only symbolically) for scientific heresy. This is my
biggest objection to Janov, in fact.<<
>>Whoa!!! That is a big 10-4, good buddy! So completely anti-intellectual that he should be burned that the stake (only symbolically) for scientific heresy. This is my biggest objection to Janov, in fact.<<
Persecution Conscious: >>I do believe that Prima Therapy, or at least, some of the principles underlying it are persecuted and repressed by mainstream psychology. If children were treated far more like Janov recommends, then many in power would be very upset. On this count, I find Janov innocent of all any charges.<<
if you don't do Primal Therapy, you'll be neurotic forever, doomed. >>This
is what Janov promotes. And it is wrong! Guilty!<<
>>This is what Janov promotes. And it is wrong! Guilty!<<
Esoteric: the inner truth shared by therapists was different than the outer truth presented to the patients and the public. >>Guilty. They have been with-holding from us and lying to us. we deserve the whole truth, not just half.
What we have is 3 charges for which I find the "defendant" not guilty in my court. On the other hand, I have 5 charges for which I render a guilty verdict. Janov has more against him than for him. He may not be a cult, but he has far too many of those features to not raise some serious concerns. A good practice, as I see it, should not have many flaws. A few small ones, but not glaring gaping holes and contradictions.
Knecht not asks:<<
The important question:
was it a destructive cult, or was it neutral? Janov claimed that his therapy
would transform people into a new kind of person.
I found the therapists and the Janovs to be the same old kind of people.
>>And so have I. I have spoke on the phone with France Janov. I have read books, newsletters and a blog of Arthur Janov. I find them to be neurotic and not very intellectual or sound in their thinking. They are poor examples of their own defense and promotions. PT may very well transform some. But it does not mean they are fully cured of all neurosis. I do not believe that anyone could be fully free of all neurosis. Only Janov promotes infallibility on some level.<<
The running of the business was based on 1. human greed, 2. deep hypocrisy, and 3. a need for fame and fortune at whatever cost.
Nor were therapists the "Post Primal" people Janov
described. Many had disturbing personal problems which had easily survived their
>>The cure for neurosis? I hardly think so. I think Knecht's observations are not only believable, but certain. It could not be otherwise, to explain all I have ever come across. We all desire to find someone we can look up to and believe in, and trust. But really, you can only trust your own judgment in the end, and even that could be dangerous.
Now we could hold Knecht suspect. But since Janov has shown himself in so many publication forms, we do not have to rely on Knecht at all. But he does offer the insider view and its the same story we often hear from other refugees of PT.<<
The Institute was a difficult workplace. Training techniques were abusive. The political infighting and positioning among the staff was the same as any business which offers lucre at the top. The humor, for the most part, was mean-spirited. Attitudes were arrogant and insulting of anything which challenged the Primal belief system.
>>This paragraph above really struck a nerve with me. I was in a rotten religion for over 10 years. It was filled with suck-ups and ass kissers. I worked in a famous mail order corporation for over 10 years. Same thing. There is a consistent natural order in such hierarchy organizations. Its the political infighting and people all scrambling to get ahead, usually by gross false flattery and trying to befriend those above. Positioning among the staff is how Knecht puts it.
The corporate atmosphere is not a good healthy atmosphere. Its rather toxic, to be honest. It produces many bad results. In the Corporation I worked in, I often saw departments playing for power and position, rather than the larger interests of the entire company. These conflicts were often very harmful to the company. As well, those at the top, insisted on chain-of-command when problems arose. The president did not want to have to deal with any of it. It was probably beyond his ability. As well, they like to shield themselves from blame or jeopardy that can come with accountability and responsibility.
This is what is apparent, according to Knecht, with Janov's "empire." I know the couple or 3 times I dealt with the Janovs and their staff, that "sound" and "smell" of suck-ups was rather evident and unstable minds quite apparent. It was a real eye opener. The things that would come out on Janov's blog were also very damaging. I think he over exposed himself in his blog. He would have been smarter to stay a bit more out of sight. We only had his books, which also got more bizarre after 94, and these left him a bit more sheltered so that we might not find out his own flaws.
And its not that these flaws are any different from any of us. Its just that when you claim to be totally "healed" (Janov's definition, not the more industry standard one we might assume), and present yourself as the Pope of PT, then you had best better live up to it or suffer the wrath of disappointed people. Its that simple.
I note on Janov's blog, that the arrogance is there, and his wife is far from rational and intelligent. You know, it strikes me as that they do everything on their emotions, and do nothing with some good solid objective thinking. Soi they really seem to live the Primal Ideal, of feel, don't think! And they could not possibly be any more wrong. This is why I think people need to understand this whole mess much better than they do. Not all is right the Primal theory and practice. they left out the intellect and this is the major thesis of my quotes and examinations from his blog, in another article on my site here.
And yes, Janov and company are very dismissive of any criticism to their ideas. Egos are quite apparent. Kecht say it. I say it. Many have said it. But fans of PT, who are very much suck-ups, are blinded from seeing it. They are part of the formula. They do not appreciate that if they get treated by Janov' system, they might be in for a very unpleasant surprise. I feel I have done more than my part to warn all.<<
Above all there were
unethical and unprofessional practices built into the system:
dual relationships (business and sexual) between therapist and patient,
false claims of results, false advertising,
interns working beyond their level of skill,
treatment of patients who were too disturbed for this kind of "therapy,"
emotional harm caused by a system that opened people up to intense feeling without adequate follow-up, perhaps even medical malpractice by the neurologist who prescribed medication according to "Primal" guidelines.
In this context, even therapists who wanted to provide effective therapy would fail.
>>As far as the sex category, I have a different view in some ways, than what is standard in our world, here in the USA. I do not think that patients should be doing whatever a doctor tells them. Patients should be listening to their own internal guidance system at all times. Sex is a very unusual aspect of human beings. We are all very vulnerable to very powerful forces and no one is immune, no ones side is solely to blame.
But it has to be admitted that there are sheep and there are wolves. There are strong dominant types and very weak docile types. There are leaders and there are followers. The dominant forceful types need to be more responsible and retrained, whereas the more docile types need to be more assertive and trust themselves more. But in any sexual relationship, and I take my guidance on this from the Bible, as I see it, It takes two to tango. Neither has the right to say, they did not know what they were doing. God holds us all accountable to the very same standards. We either measure up or get swallowed up.
The laws of the jungle of humanity are not very merciful or kind, but we can do little about being in the jungle. We all know (or should know) there are predators out there and we are responsible for whether we are victims of those or not. To say, I did not know, is not a very good excuse. In fact, we use this clause in law all the time. Ignorance of the law is not excuse for violation of the law. That is to say, we need to make some effort to know what the laws are, so that we do not h arm ourselves or others.
But I also say, as a caution to law, that any law should conform to the natural laws and perceptions of human beings. Absurdity in law is no justification for that law. But sadly, as predators become more in number, and more vicious as well, that we get more of those absurd laws which seek only to fleece the weak. Let the buyer beware.
People should not be falling for engaging in sex with therapists and then accepting no blame for their willing participation in such relationships. Sex pervades all aspects of life. Employer/employee, teacher/student, seller/buyer, contractor/contractee, the smart/the dumb, the strong/the weak. There is only so much excuse for the dumb and stupidity. We need to rise to the challenge and accept resonsibility for our own decisions and not blame others.
Yes, relationships should be based on more openness and honesty, full disclosure if you will. And I do believe that those with more advantage should be considerate of those with less. but we know what reality is. Accept that and prepare for that. I do not find excessive fault with the alleged sexual activities of therapists at Janov's practice.
I do recognize that these may violate industry standards of such things, as well as possible legal implications.
False Claims and False Advertisements
Yeah, these are a real problem. The scientific method condemns leaving data (truth) out, or being selective with the data (the truth), or manipulating and changing the data or forging false data. These all amount to lying, which is misrepresentation. True honest science does not need to lie nor is lying allowed. We despise sellers who misrepresent their products and we have laws that forbid it, though enforcement is questionable. So Janov has no excuse on this one. He is distorting the facts, ignoring the bad data, and withholding info. These should all raise flags of serious concern.
interns working beyond their level of skill
When you pay big bucks for top notch treatment, fully qualified, then you sure as hell do not want to be handled by people who are not up to the task with your psychological well-being. The only reason why they used inferior help is usually so the owners can make more money, by paying less wages to less skilled workers and rake in the dough. This should be pretty obvious, as I see it. Its all about profits. but it is also cheating patients, who are paying top dollar for this stuff.
When I go to a mechanic, I expect that if I am paying top dollar for service, that I have someone who is fully experience and trained to handle anything in or on my car. But often, its just uneducated grease monkeys, supposedly under watch and supervision, fixing your car. If they fix the wrong thing (it has happened), or screw it up, you should not have to pay for it, or pay top dollar for it. the automobile repair industry is one of the biggest frauds on the market. But with car owners not have the equipment or skills, t hey are dependant upon an industry that gets away with murder, so to speak.
So in this respect, Janov might seem to some as the equivalent of a crooked car repair dealer. I have my concerns about it all. Maybe you should, too. But don't stop there. The whole practice of psychology and psychiatry deserves a lot of skepticism. Let the buyer beware.
treatment of patients who were too disturbed for this kind of "therapy,"
This one could be broadened and more inclusive. PT does not address anywhere near enough types of patients and situations to be a therapy useful to anyone and everyone. in fact, it is a narrow treatment, based on only one single approach, dealing with only one aspect of the human psyche. Pain is a big part of us, but only one dimension. Our intellect and its ideas and beliefs, also a big part of us, is totally ignored. This is inexcusable and renders an otherwise good part of therapy, treating primal pain, useless. To treat only half the problem will not result in any real progress. If I fix a car, and then not put gas or oil in it, how far am I going to get?
We are composed of many aspects and wounds in ourselves. Some "wounds" may require a splint, some require bandages, some a scalpel and thread, some just medicine or good nutrition. The injury determines the treatment. It is the same in psychology. But Janov does not admit that most of those "other" aspects even exist. Examining thoughts, ideas, beliefs? Oh, the horror, says Janov. Perish the thought. Only PT, he says, can solve any of your problems. Nothing else will work. Hence, the problem, right?
But some patients were too disturbed, by Knecht's accounting and I believe it. I would even say that some are beyond helping. That is why I favor, among the criminal population, the death penalty for some. They are broken and can not be fixed or trusted. But as well, many people would be and could be helped, but just going back and examining their idea and belief systems, or giving thought to who they are, who they want to be, and what they might really be, objectively. Then they can decide what, if any, changes might be advantageous to pursue.
Most people will spend their entire lives never giving thought to such thing. This is the real problem and most of psychology does not like to go near much of this stuff for the status quo in our society does not want people to have a mind of their own. The Status Quo wants all our minds for themselves, only. We are supposed to surrendering our minds and will to them. Thank, but no thanks. I am keeping what is rightfully mine.<<
"emotional harm caused by a system that opened people up to intense feeling without adequate follow-up, perhaps even medical malpractice by the neurologist who prescribed medication according to "Primal" guidelines.
In this context, even therapists who wanted to provide effective therapy would fail."
>>It should be quite self-evident that primal forces are very powerful and dangerous forces. This is why I no longer recommend PT and, in fact, advise most people to pursue their own therapy without any therapist. We can examine ourselves if we have the courage and determination. Janov says we should not do this therapy (PT) with therapists not trained and supervised by him. Oh, here comes the irony.
He may be right. Only he did not go quite far enough. Not only should other therapists not open the door to the subconscious, neither should Janov do so. I am sure the neurologist is doing his best to help, but it still may be more than he or anyone is capable of. This may be territory for God, only! But for those inclined against such concepts, then at the least, our knowledge has not yet reached the level it needs to, before we can swing open the doors to the deep inner mind.
What Janov and company are doing, may be beyond their abilities to do right, in some cases or maybe in many cases, but perhaps not all cases. But enough to raise concerns from any one contemplating this therapy. Janov believes he has perfected the practice, though it always seems to be improving and evolving, the contradiction of claimed perfection. But I think he is grossly lacking in some areas. I think this has been Knecht's primary premise. Janov does not have all the answers and all the solutions. I say, he has some of the things we need to consider and maybe treat, but not all answers and solutions. More is needed. That is what I caution.<<
There were well-meaning and creative people who worked hard to make Primal Therapy live up to its promise. We failed. The system was too destructive.
That it took me eight years to learn
this indicated how desperate my life was when I went to the therapy, how much I
needed to believe in a powerful and omniscient world view, how isolated I was in
the world, and how well Janov's promises matched my personal desires as well as
the political and cultural forces of those times. It also speaks to the
effectiveness of the Primal indoctrination techniques.
>>I address PT fans now, more than anyone else. Are you listening? this is important! The PT system, is not, by itself, enough or useful for most patients. It is too destructive. Many have come to that conclusion, who have once been patients and gone on to be primal therapists, initially trained by Janov, and some who have not. Despite Janov's best efforts, his system has been too harmful to too many patients. He just won't tell you that. He has a lot of money and and security to lose, as well as fame and respect. That is, as I see it.
Janov is a great salesman. But he is selling medicine mixed with snake oil, if you catch my drift.<<
I also think it is an indication that there are aspects of Primal Therapy which contain therapeutic value. The techniques for eliciting painful feelings can be quite effective. The grief process is well understood and may be healing, depending on the context. Patients' experiences are often quite real and dramatic. Unfortunately, whatever there was of value was completely overshadowed and negated by the destructive superstructure within which it was housed. I worked hard to become a competent therapist. I struggled against the drawbacks in the system. I became competent, but the system burned me out.
>>So you see, Knecht has not turned his back entirely on PT. There is still value. But Janov seems to hinder his own progress, really. Nor has the usefulness of this therapy been fully developed so that no harm can happen. It still leaves us with tremendous insight into human beings. Janov has published many good things. I still recommend some of his books and findings. Janov is not a complete charlatan. Not at all. But he has more to recognize and develop and I am in doubt that he is the man to accomplish this.
Knecht speaks of the system, the superstructure. I can see no other possibility than that he is referring to Janov's system and superstructure. Janov is, in my view, a very hard-headed obstinate obstacle who blocks any further progress. The whole theory needs a good divorcing from Janov. but only his fans and critics, in a united fashion together, can overcome this.
Other practitioners need to give this some attention. Some have written a little bit, but perhaps not nearly enough. We need to hear from patients of these other practitioners. We need more from the practitioners themselves. For them not to do so, may indicate that they are not, themselves, capable of taking PT to the next level. Maybe they fear doing so. This is not the type of therapy that those in power would like to see progress. They like us as mindless slaves, instead.<<
A New Beginning
When I left that world in 1982, it was a shock. I realized I'd been in a cult. As with anyone who leaves a cult, I had to learn different ways of looking at the world and myself in it. It was a confusing and disorienting process which challenged my beliefs on many levels. I experienced deep ambivalence. My self-esteem suffered tremendously. I know how destructive the Primal world had been, yet I couldn't reject it completely. I had given such a big part of myself to it. I had to believe there was value there.
>>It is always a shock for people in a cult like group to wake up and finally understand that. It is usually followed by depression, or shame, or a lot of anger, among other things. Trust might be harder after that. One might feel all of those. I felt great anger myself, with Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs), for they betrayed my trust and vulnerability. I felt disillusionment with Janov, after a phone encounter with his hysterical wife. It was the wrong reaction for people supposedly healed from neurosis. She was nuts. Arthur went nuts after that, in his books.
But I do believe there is still a lot of validity to much of what Janov has found or in research he has participated in. Its just those lies mixed in the makes one mad.<<
I rejected the Institute and its destructive practices. I could no longer be a part of that. But I wasn't sure about the theory. After almost a year of "floating" and "decompression," I decided to continue working as a therapist. I wanted nothing to do with Primal Therapy. This meant I needed to open up to other ways of thinking and working in my profession. Even though I was already a licensed Marriage, Family and Child Counselor, I knew I needed to start learning my craft all over again.
>>Since the intellect is so thoroughly neglected, it is no wonder that Knecht tried conventional therapy. But I also point out that some have left Primal Therapy, only to start their own PT practice, but with modifications that Janov would never agree to.<<
So I worked a year doing
psychoanalytic psychotherapy, trained a year in a therapeutic preschool using
behaviorist and psychodynamic thinking, trained three-and-a-half years at the
Family Therapy Institute of Southern California, worked in South-Central Los
Angeles treating sexually abused children and their families, then worked as a
Family Therapist at the Los Angeles Indian Center. I read books, took classes,
attended workshops, and was trained to provide effective and ethical therapy. I
worked with couples, families, and children.
I was drawn to the thinking
of the Family Therapists. Their work was respectful, effective, and filled with
life and creativity. Initially, I consciously rejected the psychodynamic
approach to therapy. This is the Freudian approach on which Janov based his
theory. It basically says that repressed childhood trauma must be worked through
in one way or another for healing to occur.
>>Respect is missing with the Janovs. And yes, conventional therapy does have the potential to be effective, as Knecht states above.<<
I was tired of people
talking about their childhood feelings. After a while, though, I learned to
value it where appropriate in an overall treatment plan. I began to separate
human feeling from "Primal Feeling" and its inherent cultism. Primal
Therapy became a memory, like the social upheavals of the Sixties, of a
turbulent and self-involved time whose meaning eluded me.
I began to develop competency working with people who had different problems -- from child abuse to marital conflict to depression. I worked for a number of different agencies and within different legal and bureaucratic contexts. I worked with three different cultures: African- American, Caucasian, and American Indian. I found some good teachers and supervisors. I learned from them, from my clients, from my successes and my mistakes. With difficulty, I learned the value of taking a point of view yet keeping an open mind: developing a flexibility in my therapeutic approach.
>>To me, flexibility is the key. There are numerous problems and numerous approaches and solutions and to bring about the best fit is the best approach as I see it.<<
Over time, I filled the gaps until I began to work as a reasonably competent therapist. My personal life had grown along with my professional life. I had widened my social world, developed a variety of interests and friendships. I married and had a daughter. I took a primary and active role in her beginning life. I felt I had rejoined the human race. As with other "Post Primals," I discovered my problems hadn't been cured. I needed to return to therapy at different times over the years.
>>When in a cult like group, you believe they serve all your needs and you cling exclusively to them. The world at large is kept out and away. When you break away from that, You are also temporarily isolated and alone. Eventually, you end up re-connected with the world, knowing that the relationship you had with the cult was not realistic or healthy. One might rightfully miss the closeness and intimacy of a dedicated group, but it was all just an illusion, anyway; a lie.
But I have never needed help or therapy from another person. I was able to get thru it all on my own. I discussed the Bible with other people of other denominations. I read a lot. I thought a lot. I gained and grew. I changed. I do not believe one needs a therapist, but if you need that human touch, go for it. I never felt that need. I had long been a convert to psychology, beginning about 1982, roughly, while still very much a JW.<<
In some ways, the Primal experience had made it even harder to accept help from others. I had been burned, and trust came less easily. Yet I also knew of a certain depth of feeling within me, and I wanted a therapy which attended to that. So Primal thinking still worked, in part, to isolate me from effective treatment for my problems. Certain basic issues remained untreated, issues I'd entered Primal Therapy to cure when I was 25 years old.
>>I do not agree that all his problems were due to Primal thinking. We do not need others to treat ourselves. I read books from about 82 on. I read Janov in 87 and that was all I needed from him. But I examined my own problems and made adjustments accordingly. If certain issues remained untreated, whose fault was that? Why didn't he treat them or discover them? So I advocate treating one's self. I think it works just great. Why be dependent upon someone else? We can look deep into ourselves, any time we want. Dare to want and prod.<<
My marriage broke up in
1988. In the aftermath of that, Primal Therapy reentered my life and invited me
back into its world -- in the form of a job offer. I couldn't believe it. No
therapist who'd left there had ever come back, and I'd been gone seven years.
They said much had changed:
Art was gone. Vivian was
about to retire.
All the abusive and
unethical practices were gone.
It was a smaller
organization devoted to doing good therapy.
They were neither isolated
nor arrogant as in the past.
They didn't think Primal
was the "only" way any more.
They respected other
It was a good offer. Part
time work for better pay than my full time job. I could start a private practice
that was separate from the Institute. I was being hired to provide competent
Primal Therapy, but I didn't have to buy
into a "Primal Party Line." I could see couples and families from
time to time.
Strangely enough, I
accepted the invitation. For four months I lived again in the world of Primal.
Partly, it was the job; more than that, though, I think it was because I
needed to come to some concrete resolution about the meaning of Primal Therapy
in my life. It was like stepping into a time warp. Primal had been my life
for so long, so intensely.
I discovered, though, that I was different now. My world had grown and gained complexity and depth. I saw the Primal Institute as an employer, not a calling. There was a job to do, and it ended when I left there. I did the job as well as I knew how, with the skills, creativity, and perspective which I'd gained. I respected the basic psychodynamic principles on which Primal was based, and I figured I could deal with whatever cult aspects remained.
>>Knecht mentions "grown, & gained complexity and depth." PT has fundamental truths in it. But it is incomplete and lacking, too. Knecht gained the complexity and depth that had been missing in PT, suggests I. He was no longer a blind fanatic devotee. Good for him.<<
The Institute had changed, mostly for the better. The more obvious unethical practices were a thing of the past. The staff was smaller and appeared to be better trained. There was more follow-up built into the system. The clients were highly motivated, a pleasure to work with. Quite soon, though, I realized that serious problems remained. People were still being seduced into the therapy by the old promise of quick transformation.
>>It is often nearly impossible for a movement to change much. Put another way, a leopard can not change its spots, nor a zebra its stripes. They are what they are. I tried to make contact with the Primal Institute, whose newsletter I continued to receive, up to 1996. But they never responded as to what differences they might have with Arthur Janov's approach. Some of their staff had been there since the days of Arthur. Their silence was disappointing and distrubing. What is everyone trying to hide? The Truth? I suspect it is.<<
They expected to be blasted into intense re-experiences of their childhood traumas, followed by the elimination of lifelong problems and symptoms -- all in a short time. This just doesn't happen. The Primal Therapy described in the books had stopped being practiced years before, because it didn't work. That "assault" on the defense system that elicits "Primals" creates more problems than it cures, and they knew it. To state this publicly, though, would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. So, when patients start therapy, they learn that Primal has "evolved." Their expectations are out of date. Primal Therapy had been "improved" by time and experience. It's neither as intense nor as speedy as expected. It goes at a "natural" pace.
>>This remaines the serious problem that Arthur has. The process is, in general, a very long one, and expensive, too, and leaves you dependant upon them, to a large degree. It should not be that way. Mind-Control victims often had to find their own way due to no one being around that had experience with such cases before. So those who tried to help Mind-Control victims, had to learn along with and beside the victims. For a while, they were not sure of the cause, but it became clear with time.
PT could take a lesson from this. Examining ideas and beliefs can be done without help. My suspicion is that most PT patients have a sort of need/dependency upon the therapists, so that they dare not do anything without "mommy and daddy's" approval and help. This protects the profits of the practice and keeps patients coming back for more. Just saying ;-) <<
To an outsider it might seem to be a hybrid psychodynamic therapy, masquerading as something called Primal. This is not what the newcomers are told. They are told that Art's basic theory remains a beautiful and revolutionary discovery. It stands alone in the world of psychotherapy. Its uniqueness is revealed by the intensive three weeks in the dimly-lit padded rooms, the Primal language taught to newcomers, and the complex world view of Primal.
Patients are taught that Primal is the "only reality;" all else is "false;" without Primal, one remains "split off" and "unfeeling;" everything is secondary to "feeling your old feelings;" you have to "be straight," "take risks," "stop acting out," and follow a host of similar rules and regulations (some stated, others implied). Repression, above all, is forbidden. "Feeling" is everything. Most of patients' "present reality" is seen as a symbolic acting out of "old feelings" from childhood. Patients learn to "use" their present feelings and relationships with others to "get to" their "old" feelings. The Past replaces the Present.
>>I see 2 main problems. The Institute has too much to gain from continued association with Arthur. 2nd, Patients are expecting PT as they had read about, not as has been changed. 3rd, Arthur himself, by insisting only he has the ability to perform PT right, forces imitators rather than dissenters. This only perpetuates stagnation and error. Someone has to break the cycle.<<
After the three weeks, the Primal community reinforces these Truths and maintains the rules. This is done in Primal houses, Primal boxes, Primal jobs, Primal parties, and, of course, the Primal volleyball game. One house even flew their own Primal flag. The therapy is now a kind of "Bait and Switch" operation. The bait is what people read in Janov's books ("old-style Primal Therapy"). The switch is to the hybrid psychodynamic therapy being practiced. The initial three weeks is used as a complex indoctrination and rationalization to explain why the therapy isn't what it was advertised to be; that, instead, it is something better.
>>I am sure it is better but how to you convince patients of that?<<
The recipients of this are desperate, emotionally troubled people who come from a distance to a new city. They come here for a short time, stay here (illegally for some) to finish the therapy and find that years pass. They wait for that Primal which will transform them, and it never seems to come. When they object to this, or question it, they are encouraged to feel the underlying "feelings" to get to the childhood root of the problem. If that doesn't work, they are told they need to do different things "in their life." Complaints are treated as "struggles," and they are told to stop it if they want to become real. If they don't, they are eased out of therapy, labeled as "neurotic," "unreal," or "untreatable."
The Therapy takes responsibility for changes that are positive. Failure is always the fault of the patient. Patients' vulnerability, low self-esteem, and high expectations make them easy to indoctrinate into the Primal mind-set. Perhaps if the therapy were effective it would be okay. But when the results don't happen, it becomes a destructive process. So, it is still a lie, based on the false promise of the original lie. Without lies, though, there is no Primal world, no therapy, no community.
The community of Primal People lives in Los Angeles, Europe, and around the world. It has taken on different shapes and sizes over the past twenty-odd years (and they have been odd), but the basic mind-set remains strong and relentless. It strands so many in a limbo of waiting and hope and denial and despair. It became clear to me that "Primal Therapy" was a construct which didn't work at any level. The original theory was straight out of the Freudian paradigm with some added twists. The main purpose, though, was to make Janov famous and rich. Even without him, it remained a cult. I didn't want to be a part of that.
>>Most of these primal patients do not realize how much their lives could be improved by just understanding how much they accepted, from birth, without question, from the world around them and that it might all be wrong. They need to rethink everything they ever inherited. To hell with feelings if they are not going to get you to think as well. This is why PT is a failure. But Janov does not even admit or speak of failures. How scientific is that? Nothing had really changed at the Institute of Vivian, either.<<
Two months after I returned to work there, somebody burned down the Primal Institute. If I needed any further evidence of the problems inherent in perpetuation of this lie, that was it. I left the Primal Institute for the last time.
>>Imagine that you spent many thousands for a therapy that was going to make you feel far better in just 2 or 3 years max, if not possibly, even just months. You spent lots of money but have nothing to show for it. It would be devastating. You might conclude that you had been lied to and stolen from, as regards money. You might even want to kill or burn something. That is how many who leave a cult or a fanatical religion behind often feel. Lied to, betrayed, screwed over. these are the fruits of PT, like it or not. Wake up and smell the coffee.<<
I went into private practice full time. Only this time, I didn't leave Primal behind. Instead of forgetting, I decided to explore the meaning of Primal Therapy for myself and others. I wanted to give it a context and perspective that made sense and resolved -- or at least made public -- the contradictions, lies, value, and experience which makes up the Primal world. I spoke in public last year about my conclusions. This article is the second step.
I'm working on a much
longer manuscript which I hope to finish soon. Art's lie is a tricky one, easy
to dismiss and easy to misunderstand.
Those who believe it are left in a vulnerable and confusing place.
Those who have left remain silent.
Those who remain only write variations on the basic theme.
From outside, it's easy to dismiss Primals as weirdoes.
From inside, it's the True and Only way. All non-Primals are doomed to unreality.
>>I was lucky in that I had a good exposure to psychology before ever encountering Janov's Primal Scream, 1970, in 1987. So I had many ideas that I held to be true, which were not accepted by Janov, but which had solid basis. But most just stumble onto Janov and that is all they know so that they are ripe for deception and abuse.<<
For two years, part of my private practice has been providing therapy to people who've been involved in Primal Therapy. I have realized how stuck people get in the Primal thinking. I have treated people who have been stuck for almost two decades. It's frightening to see the power of enchantment which Art's words have cast over people. It's heartening to see that people can break the spell.
>>The above is so ironic. Arthur is always writing about how he has to treat lots of people who first went to mock-primal therapists and ended up worse. He never once mentioned that others also had to get treatment after seeing Arthur and getting played over. Never has this ever been revealed anywhere else, but I do not doubt it. That Arthur's spell is so enchanting is only because his patients and followers are so shallow and stupid, if you must know. The blind leading the blind.<<
Janov has come out with his book, The New Primal Scream. I can't imagine there could be an interest like there was twenty years ago, but stranger things have happened. Reagan, after all, was re-elected president. Janov now claims that his therapy can strengthen the immune system to provide protection and/or alleviation from cancers and AIDS symptoms. He describes how Primal Therapy reversed the symptoms of a three-year-old girl who had AIDS. He is aiming his promise at vulnerable and desperate people in an unforgivable way.
I feel a deep
responsibility to share my experience with the community which I helped to
create. Perhaps as part of my own healing process, I need to give something
back. So Primal Therapy doesn't work. Once this is acknowledged,
alternatives become possible. None
are easy. There's no simple, quick cure. Healing is a complex process.
>>I loved the above. PT does not work. But unlike so many disappointed patients, rogue practitioners, and others, Knecht felt a responsibility to say something and warn people. Thank God there is always at least one. There should be more. Sadly, there are not. I have searched and tried to find others, with very limited success. But most of all, note the last line, which I increased the size of. No simple quick cure. Healing is a complex process and it should last a lifetime.<<
The following are some
steps people might find themselves taking if they decide to leave a cult:
One must actually separate from the people and places which reinforce the cult
Breaking the ritual: Stop the addictive habit of thinking that you need to "feel a feeling" to solve every problem or whenever you feel bad.
Decompression: a floating kind of disorientation, ambivalence, and depression. Uncertain who you are or where you're going. Expect it; watch out you don't try to "Primal" it away; experience it -- it'll be a part of your life for a while.
Anger and loss: As with an eating disorder, Primal intrudes into an essential area of human activity, our emotional life. These feelings need to be dealt with in a different way. Sometimes long periods of repression are necessary at first. Remember, it's okay (even necessary) to repress things at times.
>>I have said for sometime, that our inner instinct knows when it is right or wrong and that repression might be needed until certain conditions are present or till certain knowledge and understanding are there to bolster the release of the repression. Trust the "hidden observer" of Hilgard. It knows often better than we do. If feelings are not coming up, there may well be a reason for it. Don't fight it. Try another approach. I'll write on those one of these days, hopefully.<<
Reconnection with the
person you were before you came: your hopes, dreams, desires, and interests.
This can be an exciting time of discovery as the world begins to open up for
you. Expect uncertainty and anxiety as well.
Creating a place in the
world for yourself; friends, family, work, fun, community. Widen your context
and your perspective. There are many possibilities in the world.
Acknowledge and honor the
needs which attracted you into the cult and which were satisfied by that tightly
If necessary, get
professional help: this could include groups with others who have shared the
experience. This is not always necessary. Many can leave without professional
help, if they have work, friends, and interests which are supportive.
Attend to the problems which made you seek Primal
in the first place: Chances are some of them
will still be around causing you havoc. It's a terrible feeling to have spent
years "in therapy" only to discover the same old awful problems in
your life. A lot of anger and hopelessness here.
If you do seek professional help, watch out for all the comparisons you'll be
making wherein the "new" therapy won't compare well at all with the
Primal one. You'll ask, "Don't you BELIEVE in FEELINGS?" and the
therapist won't know what you mean. Remember, feelings are just one of many
human processes and experiences: there's nothing to "believe" in.
Also, the new therapy won't satisfy your addictive need for intensity. That will
be hard [at] times but ultimately is a good thing.
It brings many to Primal Therapy in the first place, and it finds a convenient
hiding place in those dark rooms and that "special" world. When you
leave, it can emerge like a serpent from hell to torment you. It is tamable.
Separate what has been of
value in the Primal experience: It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Some of
what you learned and experienced may be of great importance in your life. Honor
I'm writing this from my experience and the perspective it's given me. Other people, obviously, have different views of the "same" events and processes. I see reality as a multi-leveled complexity through time and space -- ultimately unknowable. We see bits and pieces, and these change even as we are observing them. It's wonderful and frightening. I am glad we can't know it all. It makes for an interesting journey."
Copyright Curtis Knecht
reprinted with permission
Posted by zonbalance at 12:01 AM
Labels: former, primal, therapist
>>> End of Knecht Article
>>I wanted to clarify some possibilities. First, Janov shows us how damage occurs to people in the first place. It can start with genetics, but takes place in the womb, early years of infancy after birth, the birth process, too. Then, when we have a natural inborn need that is not satisfied and continually denied, will cause more damage and will keep interfering with our lives, unknown to us in many ways, though I do believe it is still within our grasp if we want to go looking for it.
Damage to deep instinctive needs is more of a problem since those needs affect and impact the nervous system in huge ways, while, ironically, decisions, choices, ideas, and beliefs do not directly impact the nervous system. But they do when those choices cause more pain or touch off previous pain. But we don't want to be fooled by believing that thoughts are not very important. Thoughts lead to choice, and choices can be a matter of life and death.
Thoughts and intellectual activity are every bit as important deep seated emotions. They simply are separated so that our inner self, the hidden observer, so named by Hilgard, but perhaps better known as the sub-conscious, although in truth, it is super-conscious in that it never sleeps, even when we do.
Janov has motivated many good sound scientific studies. He has even conducted some himself. many psychology do, indeed, suppport many of his ideas all the time. I see them every week or month. Janov can not be ignored. He is a vital part of advancing psychology. Vital, but not exclusive. Other parts are totally ignored by him, and this is the problem. He ignores good sound thinking and thinking techniques, methods, rules, but which we attempt to prove what we assert. In ignoring these, he ignores the very foundations of Science, which makes him a scientific heretic and apostate. But he is still right about much.
Psychology has always leaned toward the analytical. It too, is vital, but it ignores Janov's half, making it as deficient as Janov. Psychology has been quite corrupted by political influences as well.
Primal Pain, that is, Primal theory and its therapy, are not invalid. But they may very have a misplaced emphasis. I do believe that examination of our ideas and beliefs, our philosophy, begs to be re-examined, in order to adjust it to a fit good for us as individuals. We tailor our clothes to a good fit, so why not ideas and beliefs? Our parents, schools, media, the world, all put thoughts in our head. Bt do they fit? do they belong? Are they good, healthy or right for us, or for anyone else? These are worth asking and worth pursuing and answering. Will you rise to the cause.
Once may problems have been fixed, problems that were the result of errors in thoughts and beliefs, then many begin to experience a calm and feel much better. That has been proven many times too large to number. Making sense of our history is vital. Being ignorant is actually painful and harmful. Being effective at what we do, is helped if we understand all the factors correctly before taking action. A wrong understanding can cause wrong results.
Psychology is unfinished and needs further development. Same for Janov's approach. It might be the right technique at the wrong time and place. It needs more development and that is what "rebel" "primal" therapists are doing, perhaps. My advice is first, that you try to look beyond your actions and 2nd guess what is going on inside you.
I note that when we observe others, our judgment is never all that far off. Most people see us somewhat for what we are. But oddly, we never seem to see ourselves as we truly are. That is because we do not want to see ourselves honestly and find stuff we don't like about our selves.
But then, if you still feel the need for outside help, go for it. But try advice and counsel first. Why? Because I have seen some who saw a therapist or read accounts of those who have and I am impressed with results they relate and report. My suspicion is that the inner self might feel a lot more comfortable letting up primal pain if it has resolved much of the understanding so that releasing the pain will not be as harmful or devastating.
The inner self is very sensitive and protective, oh so delicate. It sort of has to be babied and yet, often you have to get tough with it and not tolerate BS. So if you can resolve the problems the inner self is reacting to, it might encourage the inner self to allow pain to rise into consciousness and integrate.
I'll state here ever so briefly that how mind-control victims have been helped to be healed, has many good potential techniques to allow the inner self, the sub-conscious, to communicate or release things. Mind-control victims experience primals. Fact! If you want to consider good books on the subject, I am adding them to a special science section in Recommended Books on the home page link.
But lastly, neither psychology or Janov have perfected anything. Its still all up for grabs and Mind-Contrl victims may very well have the way to borrow from as no one has ever experience more abuse, horrendous torture, conditioning, manipulation, and horror than these poor souls. That they can overcome unimaginable odds and harm and heal from it (for the most part), is definitely something to consider.
You want answers? How bad? If you do, read what these mind-control victims have experienced and recovered from. Janov has never even tackled such ones. He would not dare. These books tend to be 500-1000 pages but they are absolutely worth it. To understand the sub-conscious is everything. Happy Hunting!<<
The Following is authored by zonbalance, who published the referred-to article of Curtis Knecht above. It, too, has much that matters in the Primal World.
Primal Therapy Science?
Back to Top
This is an important
question because advocates of primal therapy, including Arthur Janov, have
claimed that it is indeed science. “It may seem that Primal Therapy is
miraculous, but it is not magic, it is science at work” Janov claimed. Indeed
his second book The Anatomy of Mental Illness (1971) was hailed as “the
scientific basis of Primal Therapy” which appeared on the back cover.
Similarly, Janov’s more recent books also lay claim to a scientific basis as
demonstrated by the title and contents in “The Biology of Love” (2000). This
is further illustrated on the Primal Center’s website www.primaltherapy.com in
which the subtitle to the main page is “where primal therapy is a science”
(as of December 2006).
First of all, to answer
this question, we have to know what science is.
Do most people think they know what science is?
How many actually do know it?
How many could say what the necessary elements of scientific study are?
Think about it before reading on; see if you can list them yourself.
You may be surprised, as I was. I found I didn’t actually know it and I was sure I did (I had studied science at undergraduate level and it turned out I didn’t even know what it is! I wonder how common this is).
Bear with me as we go through these essential parts of science, any one of these may seem irrelevant at first, but each element is important information that shouldn’t be left out to get a whole picture.
What is science, is it subject matter or equipment?
Science is NOT defined by subject matter or by the equipment used. Rather it is a way of thinking about and observing the world that leads to a deep understanding of its workings. This is important because this means human behavior, cognitions and emotions CAN be studied scientifically, but it is only classified as science if it is done according to the rules of science. Related to this is the important point: A scientist is only a scientist so long as he continues to do science. So, for example, if a physicist starts doing astrology instead of astronomy, he or she is no longer doing science.
bold-faced 2 statements above. I agree with these. Most Scientists and Academics
probably would, too. Problem is that almost none adhere to it. They do not
follow the rules, so it is not science, and as a result, the practitioner is no
longer a scientist. Few scientists or science studies are ever graded on how
much they adhered to the rules of science and its practice. Perhaps they should
be graded on that.<<
“Observation is fine and necessary, but pure unstructured observation of the natural world will not lead to scientific knowledge”…”Scientific observation is termed systematic because it is structured so that the results of the observation reveal something about the underlying nature of the world.” Stanovich1 p10 (2001)
Briefly On Experiments.
To qualify as an experiment, you need to manipulate one variable, while keeping others constant, and you need random or representative sampling. In psychology (and medicine), random assignment to the various experimental groups (which is different from random sampling) is an essential necessity in experiments, and clinical tests. My Personality Psychology lecturer told me: without random assignment, it is NOT a scientific experiment.
1 How to think straight about Psychology. Keith E. Stanovich
>>Much of psychology does not stand up to being science. Its more about politics and crowd control and hidden agendas.<<
In order for a theory to be
useful in science it needs to be falsifiable, in other words it needs to be
possible for some theoretical experimental result to prove it wrong. Put another
way it needs to be testable. However the concept of falsifiability is larger
than just this simple definition, it is a subtle concept, that is further
explained with the example below. It is important, because if you have a theory
in which NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME of an experiment or study or therapy, if all
these possible outcomes can be explained by the theory, then you have a problem.
>>Falsifiability works only when dealing with inanimate matter or limited intelligence such as that of animals. Human behavior, on the other hand, is much more challenging and falsifiability can be tricky. That is to say, humans can lie and deceive or be deceived in their participation in studies.<<
Consider the case of Benjamin Rush:
“In 1793, a severe epidemic of yellow fever struck Philadelphia. One of the leading doctors in the city at the time was Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. During the outbreak, Rush was one of the few physicians who were available to treat literally thousands of yellow fever cases. Rush adhered to a theory of medicine that dictated that illnesses accompanied by fever should be treated by vigorous bloodletting. He administered this treatment to many patients, including himself when he came down with the illness. Critics charged that his treatments were more dangerous than the disease. However, following the epidemic, Rush became even more confident of the effectiveness of his treatment, even though several of his patients had died. Why?
One writer summarized Rush’s attitude this way:
“Convinced of the correctness of his theory of medicine and lacking a means
for the systematic study of treatment outcome, he attributed each new instance
of improvement to the efficacy of his treatment and each new death that occurred
despite it to the severity of the disease” (Eisenberg, 1977, p1106)” In
other words, if the patient got better, this improvement was taken as proof that
bloodletting worked. If the patient dies it merely meant that the patient had
been too ill for any treatment to work. We now know that Rush’s critics were
right: his treatments were as dangerous as the disease.
Benjamin Rush fell into the fatal trap when assessing the outcome of his treatment. His method of evaluating the evidence made it impossible to conclude that his treatment did not work…He made it impossible to falsify his theory.” Stanovich p23-24.
“If a theory is not falsifiable, then it has no implications for actual events in the natural world and hence is useless. Psychology has been plagued by unfalsifiable theories, and that is one of the reasons why progress has been slow.”
For example “Freudian theory uses a complicated
conceptual structure that explains human behavior after the fact but does not
predict things in advance. It can explain everything, but Karl Popper argued it
is precisely this property that makes it scientifically useless. It makes no
specific predictions. Adherents to psychoanalytic theory spend much time and
effort in getting the theory to explain every known human event, from individual
quirks of behavior to large scale social phenomena, but their success in making
the theory a rich source of after –the fact explanation robs it of any
scientific unity.” Stanovich (2001, p26)
Stanovich in his book said "remember Benjamin Rush" and those words haunted me like a Dickens novel!
Not only is Freudian theory unfalsifiable, but so are many of the neo-Freudian adaptations, such as Jungian theory. In fact the rivalry between Jung and Freud can be characterized by Jung saying he is obviously right, and Freud replying, no it is obvious he is right. Within each framework, both were right! That is because each theory explained everything, including why the other was wrong, and himself was right.
But how does this relate to primal therapy? Janov was trained and practiced in the Freudian tradition, and although he criticized Freud’s work, he then proceeded to use precisely the same means of assumption, deduction, case studies and his own interpretation of them, as Freud, Jung and others had done. Similarly with primal theory, within the framework of primal theory, Janov is right, and he can explain everything. But it is unfalsifiable and there are many other such theories that also explain everything. The question scientists ask is: are unfalsifiable theories really religions?
So we get down to the
direct question. Is primal theory falsifiable? Is their a single event or a long
series of events that could disprove it? Think about it. Really think about this
before moving on.
Could poor results of therapy falsify Primal
What if people don’t get well as a result of primal therapy, in the same way as was suggested in the Janov’s books? What if their eyesight doesn’t improve, what if their cancer doesn’t disappear after primal, what if they commit suicide, what if they get depressed, and what if many quit their jobs or studies? Would any of these things falsify primal theory?
No, they can be explained, “They just had too much Primal Pain” would be one a possible explanation (I heard that judgment repeated many times in various forms during my time out in the primal community, usually with regard to somebody not present or in another clique). “They just did not feel enough of their pain” is another. Or "they did the therapy wrong". So, no, poor outcomes does not deter primal believers. It is set up so that poor results do not falsify the therapy. So long as primal therapists avoid measuring the therapy as indicated in my section "A Challenge to Primal Therapy" the therapy pretty much is unfalsifiable.
>>Zonbalance has a good point raised. The patient is always the one at fault when Primal Failure happens. And it does happen. But here is a paradox for you. I do believe that all therapies have the potential to help or work, depending on who is being treated. Said another way, the patient is the determining factor in whether any therapy can succeed or not. that is, the patient really is to blame . . . partially.
If a patient resists therapy, there is nothing any therapist can do. But in some cases, a therapy might be capable of helping a patient, but if it is administered improperly, then it will possibly fail. With some, it may succeed, even if done wrong because the patient overcomes the deficiency of the therapist. To determine failure and fault, one has to look at the therapy, the therapist, and the patient. There are a lot of variables there.
When a science is not fully understood, as is the case with psychology in its state today, then we are left shooting in the dark or relying on hunches, till better science is carried out to clarify the matter.<<
The labelling of primal therapy "failures" as deviants, sociopaths, paranoids, psychopaths, borderlines, parasympaths, LSD users, too repressed, etc, is a good example of how primal theory can be stretched to explain any negative result. That most people don't benefit from primal, and most go on not to recommend it to their loved ones, can be explained with words like "Primal therapy attracts borderlines like flies". I actually heard someone say that when he/she was talking about the problems they faced previously, in the 1990s.
>>Allow me on this one, too. First, I have often thought that there were patients with far too much damage to be helped by PT, which requires intact circuits, gates, etc. all working right. In these cases, there are other therapies that might be better for the patient. but I also believe that there may be patients too far gone to be reached or helped. Some people do not want to get well, deep inside. As well, some therapies are not nearly enough developed to help the tough cases. The fault is in the therapy, at the least.<<
By the way, that was wrong,
the complainers of the 1990s were not borderlines at all and they had valid
criticisms in my opinion. About the early nineties I heard someone say
"everybody was abreacting, it was horrible" [abreaction means false
feelings in primal lingo]. This also explains away complaints or poor outcomes,
and protects primal theory and primal therapy. I hope I am making it clear how
no matter what the outcome of therapy, even if they are majority poor or
moderate, it always get interpreted in a way that preserves primal theory. This
is the essence of unfalsifiability.
Now consider a way to falsify primal theory.
Let’s say a person who
remembers no abuse or severe overwhelming pain in early childhood still reports
some physical or mental problems. For example, if they still developed muscle
tension, cancer or depression. Wouldn’t that falsify the theory?
No, because a primal theorist would say that overwhelming pain is the cause, and therefore the patient must have repressed and forgotten about it. The challenge now would be to uncover those terrible hidden pains, in order to cure the patient of whatever. However, since the pains don't exist would they end up creating them, or exaggerating them?
Here is where it may become unethical, because almost all human afflictions and even natural activities (often called “act outs”), even when relatively normal, can be interpreted as being driven by pain. So someone without a psychological disorder may be persuaded they need primal therapy in order to become “real” or healthier physically. Arthur Janov’s books were and are particularly persuasive in this way.
>>Arthur has instruments that are said to be able to detect pain levels, etc. I know secret government agencies have such instruments or probably far better, too. But I pose that relieving pain may not relieve the suffering of the present, which may be dependant upon false beliefs, bad ideas, errors, bad choices, etc. Getting rid of pain is not the only problem or solution. One will have to examine when is in the intellect and test and see if it is truly useful and valid or not. That can take time and we might not like what we find.<<
Consider the opposite, say somebody was abused, and is doing fine now in adulthood, does that falsify the theory? No, because by definition, the person must be pretending to be okay in some way, and they really need to do primal therapy to become what they were before the abuse. Using primal theory as self-evident truths leads the theorist to interpret that persons report of a good present life as just a pretense.
does err in measuring well-being only by detected residual pain. The patient is
the only one who has the right to define for himself what is "feeling
good," or "healed," or whatever. We can also have our own
standards for others, but they should define their own. Janov walks around with
lots of errors in thought, and thinking, ideas, beliefs, etc.<<
The point is, it is impossible to falsify the theory. Unfalsifiable theories are considered useless in science. I use the word "useless" advisedly, I found that exact term "useless" in at least three different college textbooks, it is not me being deliberately mean. I have found it echoed in many different disciplines. Philosophy, psychology, anthropology and all the natural sciences all mention this point; although it is easy to miss it sometimes (for example, recently in my chemistry course the professor skipped over the scientific method in 10 minutes, which I think is an injustice to young people).
Primal theory makes sense. It explains everything. That may explain why Janov and others, including myself, got so excited about it. But that is not enough, a good theory is one that has many possibilities to be falsified, but has not been after much testing.
>>Janov has always shunned any challenges to his propositions but since he is selective in his data or even throws data out, then he fails to be a science. Fact!<<
The philosopher of science, Karl Popper pointed out that both Marxism and Freudian theory are both unfalsifiable.
Primal theory is a
beautiful idea. Communism is a beautiful idea. Communism didn't work, and I
think became authoritarian as a result of people not accepting that. In my
opinion, primal theory (and therapy) doesn't work in practice, and can become
authoritarian as a result of people not accepting that.
IN MORE DETAIL:
IS PRIMAL THEORY REALLY UNFALSIFIABLE?
The concept of Pain, need
and repression in primal theory are stretchable ones that cannot be pinned down
or ever proved wrong. But the problem goes deeper than that. There have been
many things primal theory didn't explain very well, and over time the theory has
developed little ad hoc plugs that have filled the gaps. It has been done in
such a way to make it convoluted and immune to any falsifying experimental
outcome. It is unfalsifiable, yes, and I think it will always will be so (in
contrast primal therapy is unfalsifiable due to the insistence of things like
the 3 week intensive, which blocks testing, and other things, see section
below). In fact Janov uses the concept of Pain in a way that it can be stretched
into whatever causes problems later. For example, once birth primals became the
consensus in the group, then anoxia at birth was labelled "Pain". Then
when correlational studies reveal the fetal environment can alter growth and
function, that became "Pain".
As an analogy, lets say I
think up a theory that there are little green men in people's heads that control
the whole psychological system. When psychological problems arise, maybe the
theory says there are too many little green men (LGM) in that part of the brain
(an overload). So, that is why we have the problem, it was a LGM overload.
Everything is explained. How can you measure LGM?, well how bad is the problem,
that’s how. But we can't observe LGM directly, isn't that a problem? No the
theory states that when you try and observe them, they disappear. Okay, that's
So if everything is
explained, it's a good theory, right? NO!!!!!, because it is untestable and
useless as a scientific theory. The theory didn't come out of experiment, and it
predicts nothing. It's made up, and because it explains everything, and because
it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove it wrong, it persists like a religion.
But isn't there evidence in
child development science that prove primal theory wrong? I did see evidence
that contradicts primal theory, but the basic concepts of primal theory can be
used and twisted to explain these results. Primal people may also not follow
psychological science, or trust the results of psychological experiments
("you can't measure the mind" arguments, or "you know it from
your feelings"), so their attitude makes it double hard to falsify.
Lets take the pain based
explanation for all psychological problems, for example. As science has
developed, it became clear that it was not so much the pain killing
neurotransmitters (endorphins) that were important in depression, for example.
Serotonin and norepinephrine, which are not specifically pain killing, started
to stand out as more important, NOT endorphins. Similarly, the neurotransmitter
involved in deep chronic pain was found to be "substance K", yet this
substance does not seem as relevant to depression or anxiety as say serotonin or
gaba. Yet primal theory has gobbled up these problems, explained it, and
remained unchanged basically. This is one of many examples that show how
stretchable the basic theory is.
IS PRIMAL THERAPY TESTABLE?
Not as it is set up now. It isn't, due to the three week intensive isolation requirement, the requirements to read Janov's persuasive and suggestive book(s), the requirement of a typed autobiography and selection procedures, and the attitude of the therapists to outside testing (amongst others).
It is possible for that to change, but it would mean accepting clinical type trails. This would mean for the study they would abandon the three weeks intensive, and allow for representative sampling and random assignment of NON-PRIMAL believers suffering from a real DSM IV diagnosed problem. These things are so unlikely to happen that I think it is accurate to say it is set up in a way that makes it unfalsifiable, and it has been that way for 40 years. It is unlikely to change, and even if they did do clinical trails and the results were poor, they would likely blame it on the lack of the three weeks, or the patients not reading the primal books, or the interference of the researchers, whatever etc. It would be like trying to test ESP, where the believers say that the very attempt to measure it disturbed the experiment. Whatever happens, primal will likely persist without good evidence for efficacy or safety.
(To compare with the case of Benjamin Rush, it was his attitude and way of interpreting things that made his theories unfalsifiable. Of course bloodletting could be tested for efficacy later, but things needed to change.)
Why might primal leaders
NOT want to change it so it can be tested? If the results are mediocre, they no
longer have "differentiation of product", a crucial selling point in
primal therapy. They no longer would be able to write books called "Grand
Delusions, talk therapies are no good". If the results are poor, there is a
risk primal therapy might fall out of favor completely. They may never take that
chance, because they "a priori" know it is true, it is taken to be
self evident, and they may not want some repressed intellectuals spoiling it.
That "a priori" knowledge, the self evident truths of primal therapy which are held as axioms indicates another deep problem with primal theory, that I should write about more some time. The problem is that in science you don't create axioms so far up the knowledge tree. Axioms such as the equality axiom in math are okay, but to find knowledge in science you have to do so from systematic observation and experiment, not from declaring axioms or self evident truths. That repressed pain causes all mental problems is not a valid axiom or self evident truth. Even worse is saying reliving your pain will make you well is self evident. It is not a starting point you can assume and then build knowledge on. You first have to establish that truth itself as knowledge, then build on that.
The importance of
falsifiability should not be underestimated. It can save one from embarrassment
and from being labelled crazy for one's ideas. My friend made me aware of David
Icke, he described his material as 'a blast'. I checked it out and it was
entertaining, and I realised Icke's ideas do explain everything to him, and I
think it has hurt him deeply that he has been ridiculed and laughed at for them.
I don't think he is crazy actually. Although his ideas start out reasonable, he
ends up claiming the world's elite may be shape shifting reptilian humans.
Review and Replication
Peer review is the checking
of articles and scientific work by other
scientists in the same field. Without peer review it is not science, in
other words peer review is an essential element of science. It is not optional;
you can’t claim to do science without it.
“Scientific knowledge is
public in a special sense…scientific knowledge does not exist solely in the
mind of a particular individual. In an important sense, scientific knowledge does not exist at all until it has been submitted
to the scientific community for criticism and empirical testing by others.
Knowledge that is considered “special”- the province of the thought
processes of a particular individual, immune from scrutiny and criticism by
others-can never have the status of scientific knowledge.
Science makes the idea of
public verifiability concrete via the procedure of replication. In order to be
considered in the realm of science, a finding must be presented to the
scientific community in a way that enables other scientists to attempt the same
experiment and obtain the same results. When this occurs, we say the finding has
been replicated... It ensures that a particular finding is not due simply to the
errors or biases of a particular investigator. In short, for a finding to be
accepted by the scientific community, it must be possible for someone other than
the original investigator to duplicate it…
…one important way to
distinguish charlatans and practitioners of pseudoscience from legitimate
scientists is the former often bypass the normal channels of scientific
publication and instead go straight to the media with “their findings”. One
ironclad criterion that will always work for the public when presented with
scientific claims of uncertain validity is the question: Have the findings been
published in a recognized scientific journal that uses some type of peer review
procedure? The answer to this question will almost always separate
pseudoscientific claims from the real thing…
Not all information in peer
reviewed scientific journals is necessarily correct, but at least it has met a
criterion of peer criticism and scrutiny. It is a minimal criterion, not a
stringent one, because most scientific disciplines publish many different
journals of varying quality. Most scientific ideas can get published somewhere
in the legitimate literature if they meet some rudimentary standards. The idea
that only a narrow range of data and theory can get published in science is
false. This is an idea often suggested by purveyors of bogus remedies and
therapies who try to convince the media and the public that they have been shut
out of scientific outlets by a conspiracy of “orthodox science”.
But consider for a minute
just how many legitimate outlets there are in a field like psychology [between
100 and 200 journals are then listed on pages 12 to 14 of Stanovich’s book,
although dozens more exist]. Virtually all halfway legitimate theories and
experiments can find their way into this vast array of publication outlets….
..the failure of an idea, a
theory, a claim, or a therapy to have adequate documentation in the peer
reviewed literature of a scientific discipline is very diagnostic. Particularly
when the lack of evidence is accompanied by a media campaign to publicize the
claim, it is a sure sign that the idea, theory, or therapy is bogus…
The peer review process is
far from perfect, but it is really the only consumer protection we have. To
ignore it (or not be aware of it) is to leave ourselves at the mercy of the
multimillion-dollar pseudoscience industries that are so good at manipulating
the media to their own ends.” Stanovich (2001, p10-15)
Just a word to the wise. An
appearance of peer review can be faked. Someone with a pseudoscientific
psychotherapy can include accurate science in the field of neurology in their
books. Neurology neither proves or disproves any psychotherapy. Psychotherapies
are tested with clinical type trials, not neurology. They then can hire someone
from a local university, and pay them to check the neurology science. Then they
can thank the scientist for helping them write the book in the credits. THIS IS
NOT PEER REVIEW.
Peer review (hopefully)
would involve looking not at the neurology, but at the miraculous claims of the
therapy and the quality of the efficacy testing for the therapy, the real
evidence for the therapy, etc.
1 How to think straight about Psychology. Keith E. Stanovich
and case study evidence
“Case studies and
testimonials are not useful at the later stages of scientific investigation
because they cannot be used as confirming or disconfirming evidence in the test
of a particular theory. The reason is case studies and testimonials are isolated
events that lack the comparative information necessary to rule out alternative
The problem of relying on
testimonial evidence is that if testimonials accumulate to support any specific
remedy. All the competing remedies also have supporting testimonials. What we
all want to know, of course is which remedy is best, and we cannot determine
this by using testimonial evidence. As psychologist Ray Nickerson (1998) has
said in his review of the cognitive processes we use to deceive ourselves:
“Every practitioner of a form of pseudomedicine can point to a cadre of
patients who will testify, in all sincerity, to have benefited from the
Nickerson’s point is
illustrated empirically in a study conducted by psychologist Anthony Greenwald
and his colleagues (Greenwald, Spangenberg, Pratkanis, & Eskenazi, 1991). In
this study, the authors tested the usefulness of subliminal self help audiotapes
(tapes that use messages below hearing threshold), which are commonly advertised
in magazines and on television (Moore, 1995).
They tested one tape
program designed to improve memory and another to improve self esteem. After
taking memory and self esteem tests, the subjects were given the tape and
listened to it each day for a month (the amount of time that the advertisers of
the tapes said was sufficient to produce the advertised effects). Some subjects
were given a self esteem tape labeled “self-esteem tape,” and the other
subjects were given the memory tape labeled “memory tape.”
Importantly, however, two
more groups of subjects were tested: one given a tape that was labeled “self
esteem tape” but had the content of the memory tape and another given a tape
that was labeled “memory tape” but had the content of the self esteem tape.
These two conditions served as critical controls. What happened was that there
was no improvement in actual memory or self esteem.
However, there were
differences in the self-perceptions (testimonials) among the groups. Here, it
was the label on the tape that was important, not the content. Both groups
receiving a tape labeled “self-esteem” scored higher on the measure of
self-perception of improvement on self esteem (even though one group had
received memory content), and both groups receiving a tape labeled “memory”
scored higher on the measure of self perception of improvement in memory (even
though one group had received self-esteem content). In short these tapes
generated plenty of testimonials despite the fact that their content had
absolutely no effect on memory or self esteem (see also, Moore, 1995)”
Stanovich¹ (p.59, 2001)
Everybody is vulnerable to
the same psychological biases that are evident in this study, even those trained
in science. Imagine for a moment that one of the participants above was a MD or
PhD (or imagine a celebrity like John Lennon or Tom Cruise). Imagine how
convincing it would be to put that doctor’s testimonial on the self-esteem
tape company’s website or on the cover of their next book.
But how is this relevant to
Primal Therapy? Stanovich uses an example that is obvious to most as a bogus
product so that we can think of how it applies to things that are not so
immediately obvious. With regard to Primal Therapy you have to ask yourself
“Why haven’t cleverly designed studies with similar critical controls been
used to measure the therapy?”
In more than 30 years of
Dr. Janov claiming to have a scientific therapy, there has been no independent,
peer reviewed and replicated studies with the same kind of ingenious designs as
described above. The question is, have they been avoided? Why have the
“experiments” done by Janov and his followers all been designed so as not to
answer the questions the public really wants to know when choosing a therapy?
As far as I can tell almost
every so called study done at Dr. Janov’s primal center have been controlled
and interpreted by Dr. Janov or his fans who also believe in primal therapy, and
it is his interpretation, (his followers then adopt his interpretation), that
then makes it to print in his books. Sometimes the researchers themselves turned
out to be primal participants. In addition, most or all of these studies would
have been explained by primal theory, no matter what the outcome. So why do
those type of studies in the first place? There is an answer to this question,
see if you can figure it out before you move on.
It is not that gathering
case study data is wrong, what is objectionable is the misrepresentation that it
is evidence or even proof of primal theory. In fact the very same data could be
interpreted any number of ways from any other unfalsifiable theory.
I had an email saying:
"[name omitted] told
me during the 3 weeks intensive [name omitted] went through first line feelings
and [he/she] had slowed down and felt rested, also that [his/her] skin has
cleared. Now that shows the truth , that the therapy works."
This is a testimonial, and although I know for sure it was meant sincerely, there are some biases and factors that affect all testimonials. To eliminate cognitive biases you have to conduct an experiment, with as many people as possible, and you repeat the experiment later. In this case it would resemble a clinical trial, where the variable you allow to change from group to group is the treatment type. You cannot eliminate bias by trying to be unbiased, or by claiming you have a superior level of feeling or consciousness, that’s not how it works. Cognitive biases are natural and normal and everyone has them. Even good intelligent people have cognitive biases, and even with those people, an experiment is needed. (See "challenge to" section).
But let me address the
specific testimonial above. I have the permission from the person to discuss it,
and he/she has told me some further information about it. The fact they felt
rested could have been due to a whole host of things. The person had been
working very hard in a difficult job (to save up money for therapy) right up to
the week of the flight that brought them to therapy. In the three weeks, they
were not allowed to work, and being in a beautiful place, with no work, maybe
that was why they felt more rested. It's not surprising the vital signs went
down, especially after the nervousness of the first day.
Maybe his/her skin cleared
due to less bacteria, or less stress due to no work, or due to the higher
strength of sunshine. Or maybe from the social support he/she felt from joining
the group. Maybe the person meant that his/her skin cleared before therapy, but
after reading the primal scream, and maybe it actually changed due to hormone
changes in aging. Maybe the person's intense belief in primal therapy, colored
his or her testimony. There are many variables like this.
What happens is people
become hyper sensitive to any change, real or imaginary, that happens in
therapy. Whatever happens that is positive, we attribute it to therapy. Whatever
bad happens we attribute to our childhood pain.
But think about this, good
and bad things happen to everybody throughout life. With any given placebo
treatment, there will be something good that happened in that time period. If
the placebo taker was told that the placebo could help any of the myriad of
health and psychological problems, they are going to be able to find something
to point to as proof.
People change with or
without therapy, the key is to doing controlled studies (as they did when
comparing cognitive therapy and medication for depression, see Abnormal
Psychology, Barlow 2004). Bear in mind the treatment does not in of itself have
to be mechanical and scientific, in a scientific study, it can be anything,
physical, emotional, primalling or talking. It is only the measurement of the
efficacy of such treatments that is controlled. When we say the study needs to
be controlled, we don't mean the patient has to control any feelings, the
treatment is pretty much free to be whatever. It just means you control
variables to eliminate all of the many cognitive biases.
to think straight about Psychology. Keith E. Stanovich
Posted by zonbalance at 12:00 AM
Labels: case studies, peer review, primal, pseudoscience, replication, science, testimonials, therapy
Back to Top