Talk:Thought Field Therapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please note that the 'Revision as of 05:15, 2 May 2006' incorrectly shows me doing a massive edit. In that revision I edited only 1 or 2 sentences. Ashmoo 05:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes Ashmoo, I appreciate that now. I have read up on this one and I have not yet seen an incorrect line in the article. I suggest we take a look for attributions and make requests for clarity instead of removal. I believe your edits may be ok, but we could wait a bit. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 05:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well this article seems to be going along fine. I'll keep on hunting for refs if there are any new research articles to add. Best regards KrishnaVindaloo 06:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] citation check
What is "Devilly (1996 p.444)"? --JWSchmidt 06:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) It looks like 1996 was an error.
The reference should be Devilly 2005 and this is included in the list of references. I fixed it. Is this the reason the verification on this article was questioned? --MonicaPignotti 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
Is this article a bit hard on TFT? Or are they really dodgy?Merkinsmum 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
These comments were put up by an anon IP on the page. Please discuss this on the talk page, not on the main article page.
[edit] Comments on this article
- 1. This article is one-sided and heavily influenced by a handful of so-called researchers. You can see how this article cites heavily on one author (See the reference yourself.) - - 2. Besides since most of the critics (I have checked the original articles), DON'T believe the method and have not used them in their own practice. So they have NOT seen the method in practice. - - 3. I don't appreciate Callahan's way of making lots of money by protecting VT technology. - - 4. Besides, many articles which are critizing the method have used bad labels. So-called pseudo-science. But if the same critiria are set on these so-called standards. Then this identification is by itself: Psudo-science. Have these critiria been tested scientifically? - - 5. Have we posted all the criticisms (with the same bias) against TFT be put on all other psychotherapy methods? If so, we will find that lots of them must be evaded from the Earth. - - 6. TFT, though not perfect, is an effective way that provides us an observed instant effect. Let's us assume it is so-called placebo effect. Why and How comes it is so strong? We cannot see other psychotherapy methods have the same effect. [Besides, placebo effect demands some respect and research if it can 'cure' people.] TFT has a long-lasting so-called 'placebo effect' (as labelled by critics), then we must ask why and how we can reinforce it. - - 7. Callahan is wrong when he uses the "thought field" which has never be observed (and cannot be tested). I think it is wrong. But acupunture and meridians are not false. (But some so-called skeptics wrongly label acupunture as pseudo-science. Acupunture has been used over 2000 years and cured millions of people in China and all over the World. If it is so-called pseudo-science. Then science must be redefined because millions of experiments in human bodies do not count! Actually the basic problem lies in the "belief" (actual religion in its own right)of modern Western way of medicine is the ONLY RIGHT way. One example may falsify this: When Presiden Nixon visited China, he has been suffered from back pain, but cannot be cured by the Western doctors! He has been cured by the acupunture in China! It is why NIH starts the researches on that.) - - 8. Some acupoints have been observed affecting the heart beat rate and they are related to the emotional problems. The acupoints used by TFT (mainly four meridians) are related to the emotions which are controlled by the symthetic nerve system. Callahan has been using the wrong analytical paradigm. By using modern analysis on acupunture, we can see that the method may have trigered an less observed relationship between acupunture and emotional control. It demands more research to be done. (Since all the related researches are reported in Chinese, I cannot post here. But I can post some in Chinese section, if necessary.) - - 9. The over-stated effects of TFT contribute to the wild attacks from the critics. - - 10. I have tried other ways of psychotherapies, but found this more effective than the others. So I have tested it after the initial success (But when I test it the first time, I have doubts on that. Its claims are too "big."), I have found that it is not always working (70-80%); but it has cured a compulsion patient! Placebo effect cannot explain it. Because he does not believe in this method! Besides all the clients who are cured don't trapped by the same problem after two years. Placebo effect does not last so long. Besides the clients have first encounted this method and are skeptic to it. No positive affirmations are made in all these clients. - - === My suggestion === - Make more unbiased and thorough researches (with larger sample sizes) be done on this method. Re-construct and find a real-reliable explanation on the effect (thought field and placebo effect don't work.) There must be more than that. Besides it really works for some patients (not all), why is it so? How to improve the method and benefit more patients in different problems?
