new kid on the block

[zendogg]

The model and its rationale, not the use of hands/touch to achieve a therapeutic effect

Then if this is the case, I would presume (which means I am guessing) that a good CST practitioner should get roughly the same results (in terms of numbers patients improved) as a DNM'er or a SC'er. Or any other gentle, slow non-nocioceptive, caring modality should for that matter.
By all appearances in your arguments it looks like you are denouncing the therapy. If you want to say that CST is crap, you are effectively debunking most of the therapies that you all espouse. I am making this distinction because I feel it would be way more accurate to say that you think Hugo's mental model of his therapy has been destroyed by science, but his technique is exactly what we encourage here; slow, gentle, caring touch.
I know that there are implications inherent in what a CST'er will tell their clients about what just occurred in a session and why aberrant CSrhythyms are creating pain, and the distaste for the unfortunate outcome from said misinformation is valid. But, my point is that you could make the SS information an easier pill to swallow if you made it clear to folks that often technique in and of itself is not in question (please see gentle, soft caring touch above in case you want to refute this by going on a chiro destruction rant). It is the motivation, accompanying information, the potential harm that comes from invalidated mental models that you want to help people evolve out of.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by zendogg

Then if this is the case, I would presume (which means I am guessing) that a good CST practitioner should get roughly the same results (in terms of numbers patients improved) as a DNM'er or a SC'er. Or any other gentle, slow non-nocioceptive, caring modality should for that matter.

Yup.
If the handling is sufficiently interactive and responsive, the odds of it being effective will rise.

By all appearances in your arguments it looks like you are denouncing the therapy.

Depends if you want to leave the handling (a verb) conflated with the explanation package it came saddled with (a bunch of cobbled together nouns).

If you want to say that CST is crap, you are effectively debunking most of the therapies that you all espouse.

Um, this hardly follows.

I am making this distinction because I feel it would be way more accurate to say that you think Hugo's mental model of his therapy has been destroyed by science, but his technique is exactly what we encourage here; slow, gentle, caring touch.

No one has ever argued against "slow, gentle, caring touch", zd.

I know that there are implications inherent in what a CST'er will tell their clients about what just occurred in a session and why aberrant CSrhythyms are creating pain, and the distaste for the unfortunate outcome from said misinformation is valid. But, my point is that you could make the SS information an easier pill to swallow if you made it clear to folks that often technique in and of itself is not in question (please see gentle, soft caring touch above in case you want to refute this by going on a chiro destruction rant). It is the motivation, accompanying information, the potential harm that comes from invalidated mental models that you want to help people evolve out of.

As far as I am aware, that's exactly what we try to do every day around here.

Odd you didn't spot that yet.

[zendogg]

Diane, Thank you I have been rereading and I may have missed some of the elements you point out.

But, I am referring to these statements as the ones that grabbed me.
John W says:

Randy,
The practice of CST is not theoretical. It is, as we speak, causing real harm to real people, some of them very small people who have no way to protect themselves from this kind of nonsense.

I'm ethically bound as a practitioner and morally bound as a human being to speak out strenuously against potentially harmful interventions, whether that harm be physical to an individual or financial to society.

I just saw your 2nd post- and yes, CST is akin to witchcraft. Do you think something else? Anyone practicing witchcraft in this day and age is either somewhat loony or they are sociopathic. I thought referring to them as loons was being charitable.

I know this practice is an abomination of science.

Proud says:

Can I boil this down a bit. CST is pure BS. Over and out.

My point is that without saying the CST MODEL is BS, or saying that the PRACTICE is an abomination, one (me) could take it as a denouncing of all of it including slow, soft, caring touch. I am guessing that close to zero CST practitioners got into it so they could slowly, softly, and gently crush babies heads.
N

[PatrickL]

I asked:

So what is the end game here?

John said:

...same goal that I've been after since embarking in this journey, which is ultimately about doing the right thing for the profession and most importantly our patients

Proud said:

It's not my or anyone else's job to educate him.

This is the tension I think. A desire to change the profession for the better, but resentment at those who haven't educated themselves or worse, do not see a need to educate themselves... Worse again, if they are engaged in harmful practices. John called it willful ignorance. I like that description.

I think anyone who comes here with a willingness to question there own methods/rationales is generally treated well. Those, like Dictostelium, who appear to have arrived for the purpose of gathering info to reinforce/supplement their existing paradigm without considering that it may be fundamentally flawed, are not treated so well.

So there is a judgment call being made. Is someone here to learn, with a view to changing their fundamental paradigm to fit with science? Or are they here to beat their own drum and glean info to integrate into their own paradigm? The willingness to engage in conversation, and generosity of info seems conditional on this judgement. Fair enough too, I think.

My thought though is that this judgment is made very quickly. There is very little benefit of the doubt given. Although after re-reading this thread, it seems clear that dicto was only here to reinforce his own paradigm. Those who pounced on him early, assumed he was here to beat his own drum- I think they got it right. Perhaps those who are quick to judge have a better nose for these types than I.

Diane said:

because you've either
1. killed your own ego, or
2. someone killed it for you, and it feels good not to have it to have to maintain anymore. (Egos are so high-maintenance, take so much energy, are based on such a huge amount of utterly useless and baseless arrogance.) [/yeahIsaidit]

I don't think egos can be killed off. Apparently they can be transcended, or so I read about in spirituality texts... When this happens one is supposed to be "free" of anger, aggression etc. I don't claim to have reached this lofty standard of being. And I'm not suggesting anyone else should aim for it. During that Facebook to-and-fro though, I slipped and reflected their sarcasm back at them. My ego got away from me, i think. I felt worse about engaging in the sarcasm than i did from their initial comments. I agree that egos take energy to keep in check, but this, i think is necessary for constructive interactions. My point here is that I don't think speaking your mind is a sign of a dead ego, especially if those words are spoken in anger. My thought is that they actually serve the purpose of appeasing the ego of the person speaking them. I don't see how this can be useful if the goal is to do the right thing by the profession and by our patients.

Getting a bit off track here sorry.

Pat

[proud]

Let's be clear. Craniosacral therapy is pure bunk because of it's explanatory model. CST is essentially trademarked (well...not officially but you get the point) so it could not be confused with "slow, gentle, caring touch" that also is rooted in solid scientific rationales.

Therefore, I don't think it's a requirement on my part to qualify it as "the model of CST".

That job is already done for me....the model IS CST.

I stated previously that for me, a technique has to be (a) safe (B) elicit downregulation (C) have a scientifically plausible rationale and finally (D) leave the patient smarter with the understanding that they always maintain the locus of control.

CST fails on 3/4 of those.

[Electerik]

Hi JohnW,

Originally Posted by John W

Not nearly so dramatic as the reaction of the parents whose baby was killed by a CST practitioner, I'm sure.

I agree. I think it's a horrible story and I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Why even bring it up?

By the way, Erik, aren't you the one who had an avatar of a Buddhist monk performing self-immolation at one point?

Guilty! Here's the story of that monk. At face value, that picture is horribly dramatic, I agree. But when you realize what the whole story is, it can become a powerful image of selfless conviction and courage. Even compassion. It represented rather well a period I was going through in my life at the time and I admit, it was also meant to provoke. Yes, it was rather juvenile of me, I got over it. I apologize to all whom I might've offended.

Sometimes I'm confused- mystified even- by what is said and presented here.

Me too, but for different reasons I gather. See my first comment on this post.

[John W]

My point here is that I don't think speaking your mind is a sign of a dead ego, especially if those words are spoken in anger. My thought is that they actually serve the purpose of appeasing the ego of the person speaking them. I don't see how this can be useful if the goal is to do the right thing by the profession and by our patients.

Well, as a flesh and blood human being, I'm not under some dualistic illusions that emotions are completely divorced from the process of forming rationale judgments.

We all have things we're passionate about. Erik is passionate about the story behind this monk's decision to self-immolate. I don't recall having much of a problem with the avatar, although I think it was somewhat incongruent with a board where human pain and the therapies to treat it are discussed. On the other hand, I think referencing a horrible case of the death of an infant at the hands of a supposed health care practitioner who espouses the same explanatory model as our "newbie" is completely congruent with what this board is about.

If it's "speaking in anger" to point this out, then I wish more people would do it. In fact, it kind of pisses me off that more people don't.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by John W

On the other hand, I think referencing a horrible case of the death of an infant at the hands of a supposed health care practitioner who espouses the same explanatory model as our "newbie" is completely congruent with what this board is about.

I agree with John on this.
Here is a thread about cranial in which the case of the baby's death at the hand of a PT performing "cranial" is linked.

It highlights in a very graphic and disturbing manner what can happen when an operator model has taken over a practitioner's brain completely. It didn't even have to be high-velocity! The practitioner stopped paying attention to the patient (in this case a helpless infant) at some point, focused entirely on what he "felt" through his (magic!) palpatory skills, and ended up overpowering the defensive capacity of the infant, not that as an infant it had much in the way of defensive capacity to start with..

The point of raising this, in my mind, and why I agree with John, is that we (manual therapists) are trained to do operator model style thinking all the fricking time. And that is what has to stop/ be stopped one of these fine days. I'm really tired of deaths, and strokes, and paralysis by manual therapy. It's unconscionable. It's partly the reason I show up here every day and take no prisoners.

I don't care how well-meaning, zero-self-awareness, non-logical practitioner people, may be (I used to care, but I learned how not to, learned a new boundary, from Barrett). I don't care anymore about cognitive dissonance, having gone through it myself, then realizing there is plenty of human primate social grooming life on the other side, even as a dead woman. The only death that happened was to the part of my brain that believed some crap about stuff I'd learned over the years. Good riddance. As soon as I realized it had to die I killed those synapses myself. No regret.

My big burning motivation in life is to see a bunch of supposed manual therapy operator model (so-called) professions go down the way the guy in Erik's old avatar did, self-inflicted; whether out of compassion, or else out of shame, I really don't care. Just leave human existence as professions, or else adapt to the current version of reality, and upgrade to interactor-dom so you do less harm.

It's hard, because each individual has to adapt first before the various "professions" can. And individuals all think they are self-aware, and in fact most are in a group-mind and don't even know it. And it's dangerous to have groups of people running around not thinking, and not responding, acting like zombies, and refusing to be interactively capable and individually responsible, because of some intransigent position they have taken to protect themselves and their own (incorrect, way off and dangerous even) impression they have of themselves as competent, or scientific, or knowledgable. People, these facts are unpleasant, no doubt about it. But forpete'sake grow a stomach, take a look, and adapt to reality. No one is pointing a finger right at you, personally - rather at a kind of thinking that is laced throughout manual therapy of all sorts, and, if it can't be eliminated entirely because of its overwhelming convenience, must at least be understood for exactly what it is, mental shortcutting through the forest of excellence in manual treatment of other human beings, and occasionally very, very dangerous.

[/endrant]

[Diane]

This came from the #noi2012 conference last week. Heidi Allen posted it to Facebook.

[Bas Asselbergs]

Very good points Diane.
With regards to our speedy judgement and general crankiness regarding CST and other woo-models:

we are ALL volunteers here. In the standards of practice (for PT at least) we are all expected to be responsible to continue to improve our knowledge levels and to use best available evidences.
I think I have been MUCH more patient with students whom I supervised, to help them learn. That was my assigned and accepted role.
I am not a betting man, but I bet that John Ware too takes a whole different approach with his students than with the CST practitioner here.

I have been much less patient with people here - especially those who simply look for stuff to enhance bad models. Especially since much of the "stuff" here has been accumulated for many years thorugh a lot of effort of many (some much more than others). To see that "stuff" being picked up free of charge and abused for bad models - yeah, cranky is what I get.

Lastly, if one presents oneself as "wanting to learn" (IOW a student), it would behoove one to actually behave like one....

[ste5e]

Hi,
So whether Dictostellium was a searcher after knowledge and open to change or an anecdote-led, misinformed, blinkered snake-oil salesman just wanting validation we will likely never know. He may be 'lurking' but he has not posted since 28th April.
He could even be just a clever sociologist researching the effects of a flaming opinion on the virtual community.
My thoughts are that if we have lost him then he travels on through his practice doing what he does and being the risk that practitioners of quack medicine are - fine for the worried well but dangerous for the unwell or vulnerable. One we let get away, perhaps.
Would it be worth thinking about how this community should respond to visitors like this in the future? I appreciate that you have been through this many times and it is my first experience of it but I feel that Patrick's statement of

"my thought is that the approach taken should be as non-confrontational as possible... even if it's the 400th time you've been through it. My thought is that for every new person, there should be an effort to recall how difficult a process it is to unlearn what was once known."

has the right philosophical bent to it.

Is the SS FAQ sheet, reading list, its tenets and their evidence, key threads etc easily sign posted for the newbie? Something that it is possible to direct someone to, maybe mentor them through so it is less ego bashing. It is a very public exposing experience to open what you think to world wide professional scrutiny. Would it help to sign post the chasm, advertise what a great (though scary) place it is, publish a guide book to frequent chasm related experiences and post a guide to re-direct the lost? Just a thought. If it were possible how would it be done?
Kind thoughts,
Steve

[Bas Asselbergs]

Steve, your and Patrick's thoughts on this have indeed been the subject of quite a few discussions here. There are important threads and info linked in the "Information for our Guests" thread.

Maybe at the very front page we could add the warning sign:
"Warning! All those who are wanna-be members here, be prepared to have your ideas and opinions challenged!" Followed by: "Read this before deciding you want to continue" with a link to the "Information for our Guests" thread.

We can only lead people to water. We can not dig the well, pave the road, build the car, chauffeur them to the well, and then hold the straw for them.

[advantage1]

If you read dictostellium's first post he states the following:

Just here for some interesting and stimulating conversations and to have my brain cells joggged and all those lazy corners challenged an dusted out.

He also has a link to a site with some rather controversial claims as well as a course he promotes. I don't think anyone here reacted in a mean or rude manner to him. He has to expect to be challenged when making such claims.

[keithp]

Hi Steve:

I have a sense of what you are getting at, but will play devil's advocate.

There is a an entire sub-forum titled Welcome, where you can meet (virtually) all the mods on the board and read about the moderator's consensus. These items are stuck at the top of that forum's main page.

The moderator's consensus includes links to:

Welcome Forum
Information for our guests
Forum rules

Suggested Reading
Forum moderators' consensus on pain
Melzack R; Pain and the Neuromatrix in the Brain 2001 (5-page pdf)
Wand BM, O'Connell NE; Chronic non-specific low back pain - subgroups or a single mechanism? 2008 (15-page pdf)
Hall H; Tooth Fairy Science and Other Pitfalls: Applying Rigorous Science to Messy Medicine 2009 (slide presentation)
Novella S; Plausibility in Science-Based Medicine 2010

In the Information For Our Guests sub-forum, The Forum Moderators' Current Consensus on Pain can be found, with many other topics "stuck" at the top of the list to get a head start on how the board works/behaves. There is a long list of references available to the reader in the Consensus thread including:

Bibliography

Books:
Pain: The Science of Suffering - Patrick Wall
The Challenge of Pain - Patrick Wall, Ronald Melzack
Explain Pain - David Butler, Lorimer Moseley
The Sensitive Nervous System - David Butler
Phantoms in the Brain - V. S. Ramachandran
Topical Issues in Pain Vol's 1-5 - Louis Giffiord (ed)
The Feeling of What Happens - Antonio Damasio
Clinical Neurodynamics - Michael Shacklock
Eyal Lederman - The Science and Practice of Manual Therapy

Research articles:
Melzack R. Pain and the neuromatrix in the brain. J Dental Ed. 2001;65:1378-82.
Craig AD. Pain mechanisms: Labeled lines versus convergence in central processing. Ann Rev Neurosci. 2003;26:130.
Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:655-66.
Henderson LA, Gandevia SC, Macefield VG. Somatotopic organization of the processing of muscle and cutaneous pain in the left and right insula cortex: A single-trial fMRI study. Pain. 2007;128:20-30.
Olausson H, Lamarre Y, Backlund H, Morin C, Wallin BG, Starck G, Ekholm S, Strigo I, Worsley K, Vallbo AB, Bushnell MC. Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nature Neurosci. 2002;5:900–904.
Moseley GL. A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain. Manual Ther. 2003;8:130-40.
Moseley GL. Unravelling the barriers to reconceptualisation of the problem in chronic pain: The actual and perceived ability of patients and health professionals to understand the neurophysiology. J Pain. 2003;4:184-89.
Moseley GL, Arntz A. The context of a noxious stimulus affects the pain it evokes. Pain. 2007;133(1-3):64-71.
Moseley, GL, Nicholas, MK and Hodges, PW. A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:324-30.
Crombez G, Vlaeyen JWS, Heuts PH et al. Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself. Evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain. 1999;80:329-40.
Zusman M. Forebrain-mediated sensitization of central pain pathways: 'non-specific' pain and a new image for manual therapy. Manual Ther. 2002;7:80-88.
Dorko B. The analgesia of movement: Ideomotor activity and manual care. J Osteopathic Med. 2003;6:93-95.
Threlkeld AJ. The effects of manual therapy on connective tissue. Phys Ther. 1992;72:893-902.
Lederman E. The myth of core stability. Retrieved at: http://www.ppaonline.co.uk/

That is without going into all the information "stuck" at the top of the General Discussion sub-forum. Additionally, there is a search function that can often be under-utilized by many who come to the forums.

I can only speak for myself, but I feel that if I am going to ask for someone to take their time and offer it to me freely (not to mention the many resources available on this site) I should at least do my homework, and read/glance through the abundance of materials presented...they have been documented to illustrate the viewpoints of members of the forum (not just the mods). I cannot help but wonder how little respect is shown to some on the board when a "new guy" just comes aboard insisting that an experienced clinician give of their time and energy without demonstrating that they are deserving of such efforts.

Additionally, I have no problem with the "tone" of the mods, only because there is a balance in approach. Every individual brings something different to the table...and they all have their own attitudes and experiences to the table...and have been doing so for YEARS. For FREE.

In the end, interaction grounded in a little reading and open-minded introspection and can lead to incredibly positive results (thanks, Patrick), but the opposite hold true as well (thanks, dictostelium).

As to John W's perceived strident stance on CST from the outset, I would offer (unsolicited, I know) something I wrote recently about maintaining one's values...I wrote this about 3 weeks ago, but seems relevant here:

Sports Night, Ep. 5

Tensions build on the set in episode 5, when Dana (the producer) is willing to succumb to pressure and allow an athlete (who has recently been in the news for domestic abuse) to come onto the program for a featured interview with the program’s anchors, Dan and Casey. The network has been promoting the interview 24/7 for nearly a week.

There is only one problem: to land this top athlete on her floundering network, concessions are made, and the interview will not include any questions regarding what the whole country wants to actually hear about. Casey is furious, and righteous:

. . . .

I don’t get to take a day off, not in the way that Dan does. Everyday that I go to work, I am obligated to behave justly, with sincerity and genuine empathy, and it can be as exhausting as it can be rewarding. I know that there are others who share my passion and must be more tired than I am after many more years spent swimming against the Cartesian current.

Maintaining your values is hard work, especially when they may be in stark contrast to (and conflict with) the viewpoints of others within your workplace and within your profession. Dan seems to appreciate that…but, undeniably, he has erred.

As tired as I become, I hope to never make the same mistake. He failed to realize that failing to do the right thing is no more desirable than doing the wrong thing itself.

Respectfully,
Keith

[John W]

I also refer back to very early in the thread, the first 5 posts in fact. Dicto provided a link to a reference that flies in the face of established science. I don't know if he's read the studies on reliability of palpation of cranial structures and the cranial rhythm or if he's read them and ignored them. He's never made any attempt to refute the compelling evidence against the validity of the constructs that underlie the proposed mechanism of this intervention.

In fact, he's defaulted to a non-scientific, purely emperical, subjective and unverifiable method of determining what it is that he feels with his hands and then deciding out of the clear blue sky its relevance to the patient.

This couldn't be more antithetical to what this board stands for. His remaining posts, while containing polite speech, continue to ignore the barrage of sensible-even obvious- questions about his model of practice.

This is an affront to this board in my opinion. It may be clothed in politeness and a stated "desire to learn". But, the former begins to sound patronizing as questions go unanswered, and I see no evidence of the latter at all.

[Diane]

dictostellium is welcome anytime he wants to come back and face more music. I hope he got what he came for, to have his brain cells joggled a bit. I hope over time, he:
1. develops a taste for getting them joggled instead of pampered soothed, pandered;
2. eventually loses any remaining Siamese-fighting-fish type of reaction to solid critique (not that he ever displayed much of that, really, unlike certain others, who, even though they've been here for years, just can't overcome it ...);
3. learns how to apply Occam's Razor to his own thinking, and join the board for real, not to merely explore or help himself to the buffet, but to help win the actual battle, the one against moronic teaching and entrenched idiotic treatment construct formation.

[zimney3pt]

Let me share a personal experience on why addressing these issues in a non-tea party atmosphere may be helpful.

I understand someone like dictostellium may most likely not come back for further discussion. Some will say that some posters here are to harsh in tone and not inviting enough to help someone like dictostellium to cross the chasm. So maybe "another one was lost" that will not cross the chasm. I don't know that it is any poster's responsibility nor the SS community as a whole is to "save" anyone and get them to cross the chasm. I see it as a place for open discussion of ideas. Each person will decide on their own how they want to practice. But while dictostellium most likely is not reading anymore, there are others that read these posts (lurkers as we call them in the Internet world). They may read these posts of hard hitting debate and when they continually see the pseudoscience folks leave the discussion in a huff when they can no longer defend their stance, except with "well it works for me on my patients and I don't need science to tell me differently". It gets them thinking, "If these things are really happening (CST, insert what ever technique you want) and they can't defend them, maybe something else is the reason for the outcome they claim."

I was one of those lurkers for about a year before I joined SS. I was on the other side of chasm and after repeatedly seeing those on the side of chasm I was on not be able to defend what they were doing, made me realize I couldn't defend what I was doing either and that there was a chasm. If this was a tea party I don't know if it would have been as obvious that there was a chasm. And I don't know if I would have seen which side of chasm fell on the side of science and which side was pseudoscience. Because it became very obvious after repeatedly seeing what was defensible and what was not, I realized I need to make efforts to make the journey across the chasm, now I find myself a dead man.

So if we are worried that we didn't help someone cross the chasm because of our tone, realize we potentially helped someone else because of our tone. Again going back to my previous post those that want to learn will (therapist #1), those that don't won't (therapist #2).

[Diane]

My sentiments precisely.
In order to see the bigger picture, and where the edges are, increasing the contrast may be needed.

[Diane]

Looking back over the thread, I see that Andrew came to taunt more than to engage.

There was attempt to draw fire, then complain about mistreatment (not just by Hugh Briss/"hubris" but by all who still default to the emotional appeal of salvaging someone from perceived "unfairness"), all in vain attempt to shore up all that is indefensible. Well, ha. Sorry but it didn't work, not for a second.

In the endless debate here on SomaSimple, the rules are not about who is nicest to whom and in what measure! (See Culture of SomaSimple - i.e., and aka, "This is not a tea party.") Also see Disagreement Hierarchy.
Trying to emotionally manipulate the board and its moderators is not going to work. People resort to this over and over, and fail. Why? because we long ago got over being affected by whining and wheedling about little things - bigger issues are at stake. See post 108.

NOT ALL IDEAS ARE EQUALLY VALID! [/shoutnowover]

The rules here support shaping professions into the future according to which ideas can actually withstand logical scrutiny. This means, inviting and engaging in actual argument, the assumption being that some ideas are of a great deal more value than other ideas. And it's time to weed out the useless and the stupid ideas, and save whatever ones might be of actual value, ones that help connect science-based dots instead of obfuscate/cover them up.
De-hoardification of manual therapy, IOW.

[Randy Dixon]

Barrett, having read many or your writings over the years I have trouble understanding your attitude. You spend a great deal of time and thought considering your tone and manner and the context when interacting with your patients and your students. From what you have written I believe this isn’t because you want to provide a warm, fuzzy experience or protect them, you do it because you MUST if you want to be effective in your interaction and communication with them. This is not a sign of being inauthentic, but the opposite, so why are the interactions and communication on this forum different?
I also wonder why if you claim to not give much thought to your tone and manner how you are so certain that what I claim regarding how these are perceived is not true. I have not seen anyone who speaks their mind freely who isn’t offensive at times. I can understand that you don’t care or think it is necessary, but I can’t understand how you are sure it simply doesn’t happen.
Everyone, the consensus on this list seems to be that there is occasional rudeness, dismissiveness and condescension, but that it is justified. That makes me wonder what the goal of the people on this site are in being here. The goal and wish I see most often stated is that there will be a greater acceptance and wider spread of the ideas advocated here. The statistics on this site are no longer posted, but in my observation the population of SS is not growing. The number of regular posters probably numbers less than two dozen and most of them have been here many years. New posters that stick around and become regular contributors seems to be limited to a handful a year. So what is the goal? I think we have to accept that it is not the one stated above.
I have also read in this thread that effort shouldn’t be wasted on those who come here not really ready to learn but to push their own ideas. Of course people push their own ideas, that is what is done here as well. It is like saying that you will only engage those who know they are wrong and are willing to accept that you are right. These are not the people who need changing. It doesn’t matter if they believe In the Flying Spaghetti Monster and are pushing this belief. Telling them they are wrong, delusional and irrational may be accurate and justified but it doesn’t change their mind and allowing them to present their beliefs in a forum where rationality and science are expected doesn’t change others beliefs to the correctness of their position, it only exposes the flaws and it may, only may, force that person to reconsider their beliefs.
So there it is, the source of my frustration regarding this, it is like watching an artist create a work of art, and I think much of the work done by Barrett and Diane and many others here is similar to art, and then chasing people away from viewing it because they didn’t arrive already knowing what the artist intended. It is like watching the Soup Nazi , which is a funny skit, but a horrible model for success.

[ste5e]

Hi,
Thanks Keith good points, well made and I agree with you however this all happened on the 'Welcome' page. We could have directed Andrew to "Forum Moderators' Current Consensus on Pain" and held off until he came back but we didn't. And would he have taken direction. I don't know. I regret that in my first posts I cut and pasted chunks of outrageous guff from a site linked to his hummingbird site. I was stunned that such a crack-pot view was being aired. Then I felt that I was deriding him when he might have had laudable intent. Mindful of how that digs someone in and closes their mind I tried to show a bit of guidance with the neuromatrix signpost. It is not my intention to "Defend the indefensible" but could some of this waited until he posted out onto the general dicussion areas?

In the end Josh had it spookily right in post #14 - that has to win a prize!
Kind thoughts,
Steve

[Barrett Dorko]

I am truly weary of Randy's opinion on these matters.

Do you think that if you repeat it enough it will suddenly be true?

[gcribb]

As a newbie here myself, I did not find it hard at all to locate the information needed to navigate this site successfully. I have not posted often as I am still reading and re-reading many wonderful threads chock full of information and have not had anything meaningful to contribute.

In my readings I have found Kory's sentiments about the 2 different types of therapists to be spot on. Those who truly wish to learn will be open to having their ideas questioned and really reflect upon the criticism of THEIR IDEAS, whilst those who do not want to learn just seek validation for their magical hands and healing abilities.

Gavin

[byronselorme]

I would also weigh in that as I lurked my first big thread read was with Walt and MFR. As I read the threads that seem to follow this vein (Uselessness of Core Strength. etc), and as I engage in some discussions elsewhere myself, I see that people like Hugh are similar to Seagull posters. They fly in, make a lot of noise, leave a lot of s#%t everywhere and then leave (more often then not). I think the people who post like Patrick and like John W all balance out whatever "tone" might be off putting to someone who is interested in learning and having the ideas joggled.

It was what I needed to read.

[John W]

Let's not forget that in his opening thread, A/H/d provided a link to a particularly exuberant load of CST crapola. He's yet to make any semblance of a rational defense of the statements made there pointed out by posters here- and I might add the questions were asked respectfully and politely.


This quote from dicto speaks volumes to me:

I'd also point out that science is a set of hypotheses, not a definition of what does and does not exist.

This is like saying that an automobile is a set of wheels with a cart on top- although not nearly as ridiculous. My 12 year old could come up with a much better definition of science in a single sentence than this simplistic nonsense.

And, like me, he's only of slightly higher than average intelligence- maybe a little higher than his dad (thanks to his mother).

[PatrickL]

Let's not forget that in his opening thread, A/H/d provided a link to a particularly exuberant load of CST crapola. He's yet to make any semblance of a rational defense of the statements made there pointed out by posters here- and I might add the questions were asked respectfully and politely.


This quote from dicto speaks volumes to me:
Quote:
I'd also point out that science is a set of hypotheses, not a definition of what does and does not exist.

The more I re read this thread, the less trouble i have with the manner in which dicto was dealt. It seems to boil down to the ability of SS regulars to sniff out a disingenuous newcomer, and treat them as such. The assumption is that he is a lost cause. There is a judgment call in that, but that's life I guess.

I am still wary about what purpose aggressive/dismissive posts serve. Kory, your post suggests that they serve the purpose of positively influencing lurkers. This is a good point. When I reflect, this is really how I came to SS... The conviction and certainty of posts in the Ron hruska thread caught my attention. I thought to myself "these guys must know something special if they're willing to be so forthright". So if this is the purpose, the judgment is that it's worth sacrificing a dicto (as a potential learner), if it helps to capture the attention of others.

Is that all that's going on though? Im not convinced. My read is that there is a degree of pleasure/humour being derived from the interactions with people like dicto. Perhaps some even look forward to the next dicto who comes along. I think Diane is right, he came here looking to beat his own drum, but I think there was some measure of satisfaction gained from sending him packing. To this end the aggressive/dismissive posts serve the purpose of appeasing the ego of those who write them.. My choice is to avoid taking this path

I also think there is real and justified anger, that arises from the knowledge that there still exist so many Therapists attached to operator models. The many willfully ignorant ones as John puts it. John, i got half way through a post in which i was going to argue that the cst therapist who killed the infant seemed to be acting way out of the scope of practice, and therefore dicto shouldn't get the blame for that. I then read diane's post, which linked this example to the broader issue of a therapeutic culture of operator thinking. It changed my mind. I didn't make this connection from any of the posts you had written because they were, in my view emotive rather than informative. Diane's connected the dots because it was explained plainly, I think. Maybe it's my fault for not being clever enough to receive the message you were trying to send (assuming it was the same as diane's).

As Bas points out, all are volunteers here, and I understand that no one is obliged to lead the proverbial horse to water and also make it drink. Especially when that the knowledge offered is the product of many hours of hard work, and it is offered for free. I do understand the desire to only share this knowledge with those who seem genuine about learning. Apart from Kory's post though, I don't see how aggressive/angry/dismissive posts serve the purpose of learning. I just cant reconcile this with the idea that ss is all about learning/improving.

[John W]

Patrick,

I respect what you have to say, but I think you misunderstand the purpose of this board if you think it's only about "learning and improving". There's a lot more that goes on here than that.

For instance I come here to read poetry and listen to music. I come here for pure, unadulterated pleasure.

This isn't academia or an online course in pain science for the manual therapist. Bernard runs this board as a reticent and benevolent dictator. He could shut it down tomorrow if he wanted. The moderators are a hodge-podge of more disparate than you want to know individuals (trust me on that).

It's a discussion board on the internet that just happens to be populated by people who share a passion about treating patients with pain in a way that acknowledges the unique value of science in explaining the natural order of human existence. The key word here is "passion". Anyone can go to pubmed and start reading articles on the neuroscience of pain and unmyelinated tactile afferents. The can go to Science-Based Medicine and learn about pseudoscience and charlatanism from a host of smarter people than me.

But, you won't be able to click on a thread and listen to a mother and daughter share a bittersweet homage to their mother and grandmother.

You won't find some desperate soul who just so happened to stumble onto this website while desperately looking for an answer to their chronic pain problem.

You won't see references to "dead men" and frequent YouTube links to Monte Python episodes.

You won't see an entire thread of haikus.

SomaSimple is a rich, human experience. I love that- I mean really love that- about this place.

I'm not going to apologize for my unique human contribution to this site.

[PatrickL]

Thank you John. Reconciling the comments made here with the purpose of this board is what I've struggled with. What you say makes sense. If the purpose of this board is something other than only learning, such as providing a medium for the free expression of views/beliefs/understanding and other experiences, then I see how there should not be, as a rule, any minimum level of politeness given to any given newcomer.

Cheers,

Pat

[Diane]

Like any community, it is full of individuals, acting individually.

I love it here.

[Jason Silvernail]

Originally Posted by PatrickL

I am still wary about what purpose aggressive/dismissive posts serve. Kory, your post suggests that they serve the purpose of positively influencing lurkers. This is a good point. When I reflect, this is really how I came to SS... The conviction and certainty of posts in the Ron hruska thread caught my attention. I thought to myself "these guys must know something special if they're willing to be so forthright". So if this is the purpose, the judgment is that it's worth sacrificing a dicto (as a potential learner), if it helps to capture the attention of others.

Is that all that's going on though? Im not convinced. My read is that there is a degree of pleasure/humour being derived from the interactions with people like dicto. Perhaps some even look forward to the next dicto who comes along. I think Diane is right, he came here looking to beat his own drum, but I think there was some measure of satisfaction gained from sending him packing. To this end the aggressive/dismissive posts serve the purpose of appeasing the ego of those who write them.. My choice is to avoid taking this path

Hi Patrick.
I'm a bit unsettled when newcomers want to know what "the purpose of the board" is and whether every post from every participant or moderator adequately serves this purpose, whatever it is. It always feels a bit like someone is trying to write a job description for this whole enterprise, and I just don't think that's a useful way to see things. Extended interactions in any social group are the product of many, many individual decisions of individual participants pursuing different ends within the freedom the group allows. The end result creates a certain feel and there is always a group who want to relate that feel to some sort of central plan or guiding principle. However, like evolution, these things are emergent phenomena that are not planned even if it sometimes seems as though they are. For more on this I recommend FA Hayek's Constitution of Liberty (just the intro is enough) or the Radiolab podcast episode called "Emergence".
Speaking for myself alone, what you are saying you perceive as ego feeding for "aggressive/dismissive" posts is about much more than that, and I'd say I get no ego feeding for doing it. It's about the freedom to "call things by their proper names" and be absolutely clear about standards of logic, science, and evidence in a world where uninformed opinions are prized as highly as hard-earned knowledge. It's about a little, tiny corner of the Internet where you really do have to back up your ideas with evidence and there really are accepted standards of evidence and logical reasoning you have to adhere to to be taken seriously or tolerated for long. In a world where fashionable nonsense is popular, I love that this is a place where nonsense just won't fly. There are precious few places like this, and it won't be around forever, and we are all indebted to Bernard for providing the venue while it's here. We have all been involved in online debates for many years, and have learned many lessons about how to handle different situations. One of the things you learn is how to spot patterns of behavior, predict how interactions will proceed, and enforce boundaries. Inevitably, people less experienced will see some of these decisions as premature or unnecessary, and there's not much to be done about that. I agree with John that you would probably be surprised how different this motley group of moderators are, and less inclined to think there was a grand plan as you get to know us better.

Originally Posted by PatrickL

I also think there is real and justified anger, that arises from the knowledge that there still exist so many Therapists attached to operator models. The many willfully ignorant ones as John puts it. John, i got half way through a post in which i was going to argue that the cst therapist who killed the infant seemed to be acting way out of the scope of practice, and therefore dicto shouldn't get the blame for that. I then read diane's post, which linked this example to the broader issue of a therapeutic culture of operator thinking. It changed my mind. I didn't make this connection from any of the posts you had written because they were, in my view emotive rather than informative. Diane's connected the dots because it was explained plainly, I think. Maybe it's my fault for not being clever enough to receive the message you were trying to send (assuming it was the same as diane's).

Well keep in mind different people learn in different ways. Kory is right that most of these contentious conversations are for lurkers more than participants. For every person who is persuaded by Diane's approach you mention above, there will be one who is convinced by John's. I think an appreciation for the diversity here is important before we say "I would like it better if..." and substitute that statement for some kind of objective evaluation of whether or not the board as a whole is "fair" or "works" or "serves a purpose".
What do you think of that perspective? As a contributor and Newman award winner I value your insight.







[From my iPhone, please excuse typing]

[Barrett Dorko]

Such wonderful contributions here. I especially like the push-back on an attempt to define this board's purpose. As with many naturally occuring things, the board evolved, which means it is a kluge to some extent (several threads address what that might be) and will naturally contain elements that some find charming and others less so.

When I started a blog two and a half years ago I soon realized that it could contain highly technical material one day, a post about my parents the next and then something about my current favotite song. Now I find that the color of my beard is of great interest to some. Of course, I've told countless people to shoot me if they ever find I've colored it back to brown - so don't wait for that.

Soma Simple is unique and not entirely for the faint of heart. Maybe that's why its growth is so slow.

P.S. I also wanted to say that Jason's iPhone typing has gotten really, really good. He'll be a colonel before you know it.

[John W]

Hmmm...I thought you had to scale some 100-foot rope ladder and then win a battle on foreign soil before you could get colonel.

Times have changed...

[zimney3pt]

Have you seen the clinic/tent that he gets to work out in. I think that may be grounds for making colonel.

[Jason Silvernail]

I'm still shooting for the title "Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Empire" so I have a ways to go yet.

At the end of the day, individuals pursuing individual choices and interactions will collectively create a group with a certain tone and standards. I think its a mistake to confuse that with some sort of centrally planned set of rules. Any group has to have rules, and we have those also, but usually people are complaining not about those rules but about other interactions which are difficult to strictly police.

I like Randy Dixon a lot but I'm about as weary as Barrett is with his concerns about what the purpose of SomaSimple is and how we should change to better accomplish some goal some of us articulate, in his opinion. I think he offers these concerns out of legitimate care and respect for what goes on here, and I'm grateful for that. But in my opinion he's making the very mistake we are discussing here.

As far as I know, SomaSimple doesn't have a purpose. It's a venue provided very generously by our benevolent dictator, Bernard, for individuals to come together and pursue their individual ends. There are rules we enforce for basic behavior and an infraction system for those that violate it. There are ways these various individuals and moderators tend to approach scientific and clinical topics and we have written down these ways to the degree we can in our moderator's consensus and "the culture of SomaSimple" threads - these ways are, in my considered opinion, unique to very few scientific clinical venues which makes this a very valuable place for me.

Some people, like me, love it here. Some people hate it here - check social media, SomaSimple has its share of haters who also assume we are one centrally planned entity that speaks with one voice.
"People either love it or they hate it. Or they think it's just OK." -Mitch Hedberg

There are plenty of things said by regulars and my fellow moderators I disagree with - you can find our disagreements here also. What is the purpose of SomaSimple? - there is no one purpose.
Maybe I think it's so Diane and I can argue about the mechanisms of manual therapy and I can test how many times I can read the phrase "Human Primate Social Grooming" before I pull my hair out, I dislike it so much. Maybe I think it's so Barrett can explain in articulate detail how he thinks the time and effort I have spent on formal training and manual examination doesn't make any sense when addressing mechanical and musculoskeletal pain. Maybe it's so I can hear people once again mistake Barrett and Diane's writings for "what SomaSimple believes". Maybe it's so I can find at least one place on the internet where alternative medicine foolishness, logical fallacies, indefensible medical and therapeutic practices, and poor argumentation can be called out as such. Maybe its a place where like-minded skeptical scientific people in physical medicine can come together and network to steer our professions toward science and reason and away from thoughtless cultural memes and therapeutic irrelevance. Maybe it's none of those things and all of those things.

I have no idea what the purpose of SomaSimple is - and after a while, I get tired of people mistaking "I would like it better here if..." for "You aren't serving your own purpose well and here's how you should change." There's a bit of "I know what's best for you" in that sentiment that I find distasteful in the extreme.

There I said it, and thank god I was on my computer instead of my iPhone.

[Diane]

Please stop pulling your hair out Jason. It looks as though you still have some left, and you may need it when you're old.
Diane,
HPSG-Accused-Of-Driving-JS-to-Pull-Out-His-Own-Hair-According-To-JS-When-In-Fact-He-Can-Do-With-His-Hair-Whatever-He-Chooses

[Jason Silvernail]

Oh its ok Diane. I really like how much we disagree, you have been and continue to be an important mentor for me in many ways.
I don't even agree with myself all the time, I hardly expect to with colleagues. I like to point out our areas of disagreement because SomaSimple seems to be spoken of as a collective far too often.

[Diane]

(And you me re: mentor. I get it. Not homogeneous community. Diversity thriving together.)

[John W]

I've kind of warmed up to the HPSG-label. Then again, I was an undergraduate biology major while I think Jason majored in tank demolition or something like that...

[Barrett Dorko]

Yea, I love how visitors here will assume we're The Borg and that Diane is The Queen. I want to say, "Have you ever met Diane?"

We've got to be grateful to the guy who began this thread. It has generated some wonderful insights.

The US Army is going to proclaim Jason Supreme Chancellor right after the APTA appoints me Philosopher King.

[PatrickL]

Hi Jason,
I agree with just about all you've said. Thanks. I anticipate that questions regarding the purpose of SS will rise again and again from newcomers. The reason, I think is that the first impression of SS is that it stands for scientific rationality, which most people associate with emotionally detached, objective, cause/effect and "fair" thoughts/behaviour. This was certainly where my thoughts took me. I assume some people have difficulty reconciling that impression with the content/tone of comments directed at them (especially so if they cannot separate themselves from their ideas). But I'm coming to realize that the problem here is not comments or their tone, but the association made by newcomers between science, causality and fairness. Perhaps accepting the emergent culture at ss is the first step away from cause/effect thinking and towards non-linear systems.

In the light of an understanding that there is no real purpose here, other than providing a medium for the free expression of views/beliefs/understanding/other experiences, it is clearer to me that SS is in a sense, an escape from linear thinking and the cultural niceties we have to adhere to everywhere else. Bas mentioned that he is less harsh with PT students in his clinic than he is with 'students' on SS. This place seems to provide permission to do this. As you say Jason,

It's about the freedom to "call things by their proper names" and be absolutely clear about standards of logic, science, and evidence in a world where uninformed opinions are prized as highly as hard-earned knowledge. It's about a little, tiny corner of the Internet where you really do have to back up your ideas with evidence and there really are accepted standards of evidence and logical reasoning you have to adhere to to be taken seriously or tolerated for long. In a world where fashionable nonsense is popular, I love that this is a place where nonsense just won't fly

I am all for that, but I will continue to try my best to be informative rather than emotive, just because that's fits my style of learning and interacting. My wife tells me all the time how boring I can be!

One of the things you learn is how to spot patterns of behavior, predict how interactions will proceed, and enforce boundaries. Inevitably, people less experienced will see some of these decisions as premature or unnecessary, and there's not much to be done about that.

Yep, I agree there is a skill here that will only be attained with practice/time.

As for the ego stuff. This was not meant to be insulting, sorry if it was. My point here is that we all have an ego, and that for most mere mortals it shapes our thoughts and reactions. This was really about countering diane's assertion that 'when you're dead, you don't have to worry about your ego anymore'. I disagree with this. I think it's always there, and is always influencing what we do. I'm not saying this from any sort of moral high ground. My desire to not engage in aggressive/dismissive posts is probably an ego pay off of some sort. Your desire to call out nonsense when you see it could possibly be an ego pay off for you, somehow, but I do accept that it's not my place to make that judgment. Diane mentioned that it feels good to not have to invest energy in maintaining her ego or others. I think the culture of SS is unique in that it facilitates interaction without concern for ego. I can see how it feels good, perhaps liberating to be in an environment where this can happen, where interactions can move quickly and cut to the chase.

I'm glad I found SS.

[John W]

Patrick,

I'm very glad you found SS, too. Your style fills some aspects of a void that I, for one, thought were lost with the passing of Jon Newman.

Now, if you start speaking in "robot" you're really going to give me the willies.

[Jason Silvernail]

Hi Patrick-
I think you are mostly on track but there are some things I can't agree with just yet.

Originally Posted by PatrickL

Hi Jason,
I agree with just about all you've said. Thanks. I anticipate that questions regarding the purpose of SS will rise again and again from newcomers. The reason, I think is that the first impression of SS is that it stands for scientific rationality, which most people associate with emotionally detached, objective, cause/effect and "fair" thoughts/behaviour. This was certainly where my thoughts took me. I assume some people have difficulty reconciling that impression with the content/tone of comments directed at them (especially so if they cannot separate themselves from their ideas).

If you know of a place where humans talk to each other, in a culture of scientific rationality, that does not have comment/tone issues from time to time, let me know. We can publish it together. The fact that sometimes uncomfortable interactions take place is not a sign there's no science here or there's no standards - it's a sign of us all being human. If you're looking for a place with perfectly rational and detached communication then by all means grab your local calculator and ask it to run an equation. The issue of "fair thoughts/behavior" is entirely a question of judgment and objective standards are difficult to adhere to. So the occasional uncomfortable or tense communication here does not mean there are no standards at all or that we don't have a culture of reasoned argument here - which we absolutely do. To the degree we all collectively fail at achieving that, its our inherent humanity at fault and not any sense of inconsistent community standards or dominant culture.

I think this is important. What I don't sign on to is my judgment of your above post which left me with the impression you meant something like "I used to think SomaSimple was about science but one person said something kinda mean so I guess now SomaSimple is really just some sort of 'anything goes' hangout where you can say what you want."

Originally Posted by PatrickL

But I'm coming to realize that the problem here is not comments or their tone, but the association made by newcomers between science, causality and fairness. Perhaps accepting the emergent culture at ss is the first step away from cause/effect thinking and towards non-linear systems.

If people think science is free of error, bias, personal agendas, and the occasional angry outburst then the issue is their impossibly unrealistic understanding of the human scientific enterprise and not with culture at SomaSimple.

Originally Posted by PatrickL

In the light of an understanding that there is no real purpose here, other than providing a medium for the free expression of views/beliefs/understanding/other experiences, it is clearer to me that SS is in a sense, an escape from linear thinking and the cultural niceties we have to adhere to everywhere else. Bas mentioned that he is less harsh with PT students in his clinic than he is with 'students' on SS. This place seems to provide permission to do this.

Well the lack of a defining purpose doesn't mean we don't have a culture and a sense of community standards. In a world of forced social niceties it's a place where plain speaking is more accepted - that actually moves it more towards standards of scientific discourse that you mentioned above.

Originally Posted by PatrickL

I am all for that, but I will continue to try my best to be informative rather than emotive, just because that's fits my style of learning and interacting. My wife tells me all the time how boring I can be!

Like all our individual participants here you are free to pursue your own ends in most any way
you like, including this one.

Originally Posted by PatrickL

As for the ego stuff. This was not meant to be insulting, sorry if it was. My point here is that we all have an ego, and that for most mere mortals it shapes our thoughts and reactions. This was really about countering diane's assertion that 'when you're dead, you don't have to worry about your ego anymore'. I disagree with this. I think it's always there, and is always influencing what we do. I'm not saying this from any sort of moral high ground. My desire to not engage in aggressive/dismissive posts is probably an ego pay off of some sort. Your desire to call out nonsense when you see it could possibly be an ego pay off for you, somehow, but I do accept that it's not my place to make that judgment. Diane mentioned that it feels good to not have to invest energy in maintaining her ego or others. I think the culture of SS is unique in that it facilitates interaction without concern for ego. I can see how it feels good, perhaps liberating to be in an environment where this can happen, where interactions can move quickly and cut to the chase.

I'm not insulted at all. Well, I'll leave the psychology and ego discussion for those more qualified than me, but say your ideas on facilitation of interaction without concern for ego" is again moving toward that ideal of scientific discourse that is an important part of our culture here.

[caro]

Originally Posted by Jason Silvernail

I like to point out our areas of disagreement because SomaSimple seems to be spoken of as a collective far too often.

Hear, hear.

To which I'll add this quote by Ramachandran :

Homogeneity breeds weakness: theoretical blindspots, stale paradigms, an echo-chamber mentality, and cults of personality. A diverse dramatis personae is a powerful tonic against these ailments. Science benefits from its inclusion of the abstraction-addled, absent-minded professors, the control-freak obsessives, the cantankerous bean-counting statistics junkies, the congenitally contrarian devil's advocates, the hard-nosed data-oriented literalists, and the starry-eyed romantics who embark on high-risk, high pay-off ventures, stumbling frequently along the way

[gollygosh]

For me Somasimple has been an amazing experience. A little like a moth to a candle. This is my first ecommunity so I had no expectations. I welcomed Barret's friendly avatar, and was quite terrified by the hpsg's avatar. The brain power is impressive, the passion is palpable--yes my palpation skills are that good. (tried to insert wink but not sure it worked).

I have spent the better part of my career trying to find explanations that make sense. This site holds so much information I'll never catch up. Now when amidst the mesedermal nonsense at work, I have more information than just intuition to battle with.

Re dicto/2nd name/3rd name, and all newbies-- two days of lurking would be enough to know that until you are ready to be challenged, you should watch and learn.


Geralyn

[nari]

I am rather baffled by the need to find a purpose to SS. It's akin to the need to find a purpose in evolution; to me it exists because of biological growth. Anyway, enough on that touchy analogy.

Clearly the site offers many opportunities to "grow' in the name of science. The moderators are not a homogenous collective, but we are all here to learn about what is important and most effective in patient care.

Behind this learning is the common denominator of science, blended in with common sense, which implies rational thinking and not substituting pseudoscience for what we don't understand. We also understand the need to empower patients - hence the need to be interactive and not just operative. Clinically, it does make a difference to the much vaunted outcomes.

Intuition is valuable but assists only with a background of neuroscience where a minimum of two nervous systems can gel, hopefully. But being human this process can get complicated....

That's my rant for the week. Nobody ever said that learning about neuroscience is easy.

Nari

[PatrickL]

Jason, I think we agree here, but have wires crossed.

If you know of a place where humans talk to each other, in a culture of scientific rationality, that does not have comment/tone issues from time to time, let me know. The fact that sometimes uncomfortable interactions take place is not a sign there's no science here or there's no standards - it's a sign of us all being human

I don't think such a place exists. I did not mean to imply that uncomfortable interactions=lack of science on your part. But rather, newcomers come with an expectation of fair/reasonable discussion, based on the belief that what they bring to the table is fair and reasonable, even when it's not. From here, the dismissive/aggressive comments flow, because pseudoscience is fair game and given that there is no central purpose here to educate, I have no objections to such comments.

If you're looking for a place with perfectly rational and detached communication then by all means grab your local calculator and ask it to run an equation

I'm not looking for such a place, but newcomers to SS might be doing this, in the sense that they expect a fair/even discussion of their (willfully ignorant-thanks john) scientific views

Originally Posted by PatrickL
But I'm coming to realize that the problem here is not comments or their tone, but the association made by newcomers between science, causality and fairness. Perhaps accepting the emergent culture at ss is the first step away from cause/effect thinking and towards non-linear systems.
Jason said:
If people think science is free of error, bias, personal agendas, and the occasional angry outburst then the issue is their impossibly unrealistic understanding of the human scientific enterprise and not with culture at SomaSimple.

You lost me in the bold part above. I agree with what you've said but can't see how it fits with my comment. My point was that the ability to get past the notion of causality is perhaps a big step in understanding the science that is discussed here at SS i.e. SS has no purpose, it's culture is emergent. If this is not understood, how can a newcomer expect to understand the neuromatrix model? I'm saying the problem lies with the newcomer's capacity for understanding, not the SS moderator's comments, or the tones of those comments. As for the fairness thing, i think newcomers cling to the idea of fairness because they believe their treatment paradigms/rationales are valid and deserve consideration here at SS.

I think this is important. What I don't sign on to is my judgment of your above post which left me with the impression you meant something like "I used to think SomaSimple was about science but one person said something kinda mean so I guess now SomaSimple is really just some sort of 'anything goes' hangout where you can say what you want."

I've thought hard about how you interpreted my post in this way. I'm not sure how you arrived there, can you clarify for me? I'm guessing you were referring to this

If the purpose of this board is something other than only learning, such as providing a medium for the free expression of views/beliefs/understanding and other experiences, then I see how there should not be, as a rule, any minimum level of politeness given to any given newcomer.

Perhaps I should have said no minimum level of politeness when it comes to discussing treatment paradigms/rationales. This was my original intent.

Originally Posted by PatrickL
In the light of an understanding that there is no real purpose here, other than providing a medium for the free expression of views/beliefs/understanding/other experiences, it is clearer to me that SS is in a sense, an escape from linear thinking and the cultural niceties we have to adhere to everywhere else. Bas mentioned that he is less harsh with PT students in his clinic than he is with 'students' on SS. This place seems to provide permission to do this.

Jason said:
Well the lack of a defining purpose doesn't mean we don't have a culture and a sense of community standards. In a world of forced social niceties it's a place where plain speaking is more accepted - that actually moves it more towards standards of scientific discourse that you mentioned above.

I agree. It's a win-win as far as relief from cultural restraints and standards of scientific discourse is concerned

[Randy Dixon]

Originally Posted by Jason Silvernail

I'm still shooting for the title "Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Empire" so I have a ways to go yet.

At the end of the day, individuals pursuing individual choices and interactions will collectively create a group with a certain tone and standards. I think its a mistake to confuse that with some sort of centrally planned set of rules. Any group has to have rules, and we have those also, but usually people are complaining not about those rules but about other interactions which are difficult to strictly police.

I like Randy Dixon a lot but I'm about as weary as Barrett is with his concerns about what the purpose of SomaSimple is and how we should change to better accomplish some goal some of us articulate, in his opinion. I think he offers these concerns out of legitimate care and respect for what goes on here, and I'm grateful for that. But in my opinion he's making the very mistake we are discussing here.

Jason,
The feelings are mutual, both the liking and the weariness. You are lucky, I just composed a long reply to this when the computer decided to reboot. How rude and more than a little arrogant.

I don't expect people's behavior to be monitored or policed, at all, in fact I think there is too much moderating that goes on here. My problem is that I see people state certain goals and then act counter to what they stated. I will point this out just like I will point out logical fallacies when I see them presented and Diane will point out meat mashing. I will also point out when people claim others are saying things that are inappropriate when they themselves are, or at least I might, I don't have any desire to follow everyone around on the list all day. Lastly, I have trouble reconciling the type of care advocated here and the consideration for tone, manner and context and the behavior people exhibit on this forum. Brains are brains and human interaction is human interaction, the same principles apply to both. When I see them applied differently there is dissonance. I don't like dissonance in my principles.

As far as the purpose of SS, I think that it is a good question for each person to ask, what is their purpose here and how do they think they can best accomplish it. It doesn't require a top down answer, but there is a collective goal, whether it is explicit or not, that emerges. All I'm asking is that people should consider what they think that is.

Just for you though, I will refrain from chiding anybody about their rude words or dismissive behavior for two weeks. Unless I'm provoked. Or it is raining. Or I haven't had my Pepsi yet.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by Randy Dixon

Just for you though, I will refrain from chiding anybody about their rude words or dismissive behavior for two weeks.

You're allowed to punish any crime you'll find. I think that everyone, here, tolerate and accept reprimands when they are applied with some justice.
Of course, you'll never get any thank for that. If some of us accept (somehow) punishments this is not a reason to congratulate the executioner.

[John W]

Some well-intentioned liberal politician here in Louisiana recently proposed a new "bullying" bill in the state senate. If a kid makes a face at another kid, calls him a name, or tells him that he doesn't want him included in a private discussion with a group of friends, this is all considered "bullying".

As a father whose child was really bullied in a very cruel way and then going through trying to get it dealt with in the public school system, I realize how important it is that terms are well-defined. In this case, if you define everying as "bullying", then it means nothing. When actual bullying occurs, then it's impossible to do anything about it because no one really knows what real bullying is.

I think our politically correct society has become generally "sissified" across the board. Too many are offended by just about everything. Randy's definition of "rudeness" is so broad that it means nothing and anyone can be accused of it at any time because Randy says so.

Well, that doesn't make it true.

I'm trying to figure out where Randy's outrage about allt the "rudeness" and "tone" on this board was when ginger compared Barrett to Jim Jones and some of the rest of us as his cult followers. Oh, here's what Randy said:

My opinion doesn't hold any weight but I am against throwing anybody off. People can always be ignored.

Sensible advice.

[Jason Silvernail]

Patrick-
Perhaps we are on the same page, then.
I think if people with genuinely nonscientific ideas (CST, energy medicine, et al) arrive here (or anywhere) with the expectation that they will be accorded courtesy and a "blank slate" open consideration of whatever ideas they float, regardless of how many times many of us have seen those ideas and concepts before and regardless of how incompatible they are with modern science, they have unrealistic expectations and are bound to be disappointed regardless of how the community responds.

I think many of us try to be as welcoming as possible and avoid being dismissive or rude to the degree we can, and Bernard points that out above. I'm not happy about, proud of or apologetic for occasional harsh treatment, but I can't help thinking its sometimes called for, and perhaps there's not enough of that overall in our respective societies.

A "young-earther" arriving at a professional geology forum should not expect people there to say something like "Really, the earth is only 6,000 years old? Fascinating, please present all your evidence, we will consider it in detail and cover every point individually for the 500th time, despite how thoroughly refuted your position has been in the scientific literature and how many times we've seen similar people here and elsewhere defend this sort of indefensible position. Welcome, kind sir!"
Of course, responding with "Get out of here, crazy guy, you are a nutcase, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out" is not appropriate either.

Some middle position is probably indicated and we all probably have different opinions about where on that continuum the response should lie for any individual situation. But that would be a "judgment call" not a statement of fact. It isn't a question of treating someone fairly or unfairly like there are only two options, its a much more subtle than that, and involves mostly a personal assessment that no group can hope to agree on, beyond basic ground rules. Believe me there is considerable disagreement between individuals both publicly and among the moderators about how to address these issues when they arise, and expecting disparate heterogenous participants in an unplanned emergent system to agree about where on that continuum to consistently respond to every new situation is, I think, unreasonable.

I would say that there is value to even the people who leave angry when they cannot defend their position well and/or promote pseudoscience. One of the only ways to change how these issues are addressed in our professions is to send consistent messages. If a die-hard craniosacral participant leaves here with the idea we reject the treatment and feel its unscientific and not worthy of modern healthcare, that's actually good feedback for them to receive. They probably don't get much pushback in life for their ideas due to people being uninformed about them generally, other professionals in theirs and related field being Shruggies, and their patients/clients not being in a position to evaluate the constructs. They make a mental note of that and retreat to their comfortable community and have the knowledge that many people who profess a scientific approach to medicine and healthcare think their practice is wholly inconsistent with that goal, and they might think twice before proudly proclaiming their ideas elsewhere. At least they should have the understanding that it's a minority unpopular view for good reason. The reason astrology lost favor as a method for being valid in making key decisions was that it eventually was laughed out of the room.

I don't want to be rude to people but I want to accelerate the speed at which we abandon indefensible practices in medicine, fitness, and healthcare that we frankly should have given up on years ago but remain in play due to habit and culture. If that means a few people get their noses pushed out of place in the process, that's an acceptable cost of doing business in my book.

Hi Randy.
John covered part of what I would have responded to you with, and my description to Patrick about the judgment and continuum inherent in interactions here goes pretty far in explaining where you and I disagree as well.