Talk:Human Potential Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Controversy

"The movement has received criticism in two forms. The first is from researchers in psychology, medicine, and science who often dismiss the movement as being grounded in pseudoscience, overusing Psycho-babble, and whose efficacy can be explained entirely by placebo. This criticism was expressed by Richard Feynman's response to his visit at Esalen."

As for me, use of the word 'placebo' with regard to the mental techniques is totally wrong. It could stand for the pills and other drug medicines. But not for the mental techniques, since placebo effect itself is a form of mental technique (if it works). Thus, there is _NO DIFFERENCE_ between placebo effect and mental technique.

Placebo effect is not a mental technique, and I defy you to provide any evidence that it is. It is chiefly manifested as a statistical phenomenon. If you look at the article about it you'll see that many people consider it solely organic. And are you implying that placebo effect is a technique of the human potential movement? John FitzGerald 02:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mental techniques don't work for everybody. It's individual question. I've been practising NLP, Transcendental Meditation, visualisation-related methods (with regards to thinking capabilities), Silva method, speed reading and other methods _for years_ with good effects. And I don't care whether some scientist accepts it as truth or not, especially that, as I said, those techniques are _individual-based_.

I say mental techniques work for nobody – to disprove that null hypothesis you can cite some properly controlled studies which disprove it. John FitzGerald

So, one may criticise as pseudoscience some 'archeologic revelations' as well as the 'brand new' new ideas for 'perpetual engine'; but let the sceptics stay away from the mental techniques, for they will never be able to prove them always beneficial or always harmful (or non-efficient) simply because those techniques are individual and not universal, and even if some technique works for the single person on the planet Earth, it's fine (because this person is better off). (Critto, but unlogged)

No techniques are uniformly helpful, whether there's evidence that they work or not. John FitzGerald
I am the main author of this article, and I agree with your criticism of this paragraph. I too have had a lot of experience with "mental techniques" and agree that they work for some people and that they work in much the same way as placebo. However, I do think that the skeptics have a point, but I do not know how best to express it. I am in many ways a hard-nosed skeptic myself and find myself to be annoyed quite often at the way some "mental techniques" are supported, justified, or theorized using pseudoscientific nonsense. So, I find myself kinda split on the whole idea. This is really very similar as the perrennial psudo-scientific "problems" with psychoanalysis. Here's a shot at describing the problem informally.
I believe you that it's difficult. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion, that one should seperate the pseudo-scientific or (purely) religious background from the mental techniques, basing on the usefulness (taking the utilitarian stance). One may believe in some religion or not, all pseudoscience may be (more or less) easily debunked, but nonetheless, the techniques they tried to 'incorporate' (or actually incorporated) may (or may not) be useful. Here is an excerpt of my edition, refutting the first claim of critics:
"Refutting part of this criticism one should, however, separate the pseudoscientific or religious background from the mental techniques, which may, or may not (depending on the individual character of each person) be useful and beneficial. Talking about the techniques, one should not employ the "one-size-fits-all" way of thinking, because human beings are so complicated and diverse, that there can be no panacea that works for everyone. "
What do you think about it?
I have also placed the rebuttal for another part of criticism (regarding to narcissism and self-centered stance).
"Refutting this criticism, one can say that the stronger an individual is, the more he (or she) may help others; and thus, self-development may give more power to one who wants to help others." Critto
Someone invents a great "mental technique" and begins to practice it regularly and somehow improves his/her life experience. The experience is so convincing that the individual tries to convince others to try out the technique and in order to do so, tries to find some kind of way to support the idea using "normal" scientific theories. This is the most flaky when the scientific theory does not explicitly support the technique at all, but some additional "interpretation" of the "meaning" of the scientific theory is tacked on in order to justify the technique. This really turns off skeptics and scientists because it is obvious that the technique promoter is abusing science in order to sell something. It smacks of mind-control, religion, dogma, quackery, etc.
Yes, I agree that it makes more harm than good, as (1) lying for any purpose is wrong and (2) it's counterproductive, as it may make both experts and the ordinary people turn away from the things that may help them. It's sad how many intelligent people are literally shooting themselves in their feet. Fortunately, at least the NLP movement is almost free of 'pseudoscience', as they openly state that they seek for useful techniques (utilitarian drive) and not for their pseudo-scientific explanation. As many of them are practising psychologists or psychiatrists, some try to explain those things using the scientific methods, but it's in their individual efforts, and not in the "mainstream" of NLP. Critto
However, if all the malappropriated science is jettisoned, and the technique is treated as a purely subjective way of approaching something that may work for some people some of the time, then it would be less likely to bother the skeptics. But now there are a couple of new problems.
It depends on what skeptics you are talking about: the scientific or the prejudiced :) For example, the Skeptic Dictionary categorized the speed reeding as 'junk science and pseudoscience' (link: http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html) , basing on the statement that some people claim to be able to read 10000 to 25000 words per minute(!). (the link: http://www.skepdic.com/speedreading.html ). Thus, they make an absurdal claim and then rebut it, making their argument a logical fallacy. But the usefulness of speed reading has been proven for many times, and recently, in Poland, there was even a tournament organised in speed reading. 2000-3000 thousand words per minute (with comprehension, of course) was an achievable thing out there. It doesn't, however, stop the 'skeptics' from debunking all speed reading as a useless myth. Well, to give them their due, they presented the dissenting voices of some people in the 'reader comments' section. And speed reading is a wonderful example of how the human minds differ: one person analyses the text while reading it (what takes much time), while another one 'loads it up to his/her memory', and only after this performs its analysis. I think it's no wrong to speculate that the second type of person is more likely to make use of speed reading. Critto
First of all, the optimistic scientist would say that the subjective qualities of the mental experience may currently be in a proto-scientific frontier, but that eventually those areas can and should submit to scientific inquiry.
Yes, and they will, but at least some methods must change. For example, because of the individual character of those techniques, it would be wrong to employ the same test as used for new chemical drugs, where the selected group of volunteers are provided with their medication; what works for one may not work for another one, even if he (she) is a volunteer. Rather, I think that the scientists should concentrate their research on the persons who, with failure or success, used those techniques. Critto
Secondly, the "true believer" agrees with this skeptical, yet optimistic, scientist on precisely that point. The believer thinks that somehow these techniques should be useful for everyone if they work for some people, because, after all, we all share the same basic genome and basic phenotypical attributes.
In my opinion, both of them employ the naive "one-size-fits-all" view, which disregards the human diversity and complexity. Actually, there is not, and can't be a panacea. Most of those techniques rely on the individual capabilities as the imagination (meant as the ability to imagine), ability to 'convince oneself' to something (necessary for affirmations to work), receptivity to hypnosis (it has been proven long ago that one may be more or less receptive, as well as non-receptive at all), and many more issues like that. Critto
And finally, there is a flaw I find in the way of thinking employed by some psychologists: they think that if something works, or is true for 99% of the population, it should work for everybody. Well, such a stance could only be true with regards to psychosociology, which relates to the 'macro-scale' issues; in the individual psychology, however, it is totally wrong as someone may belong to this 1% -- and those '99%' are the result of intentional overrating the issue by myself, as some psychological research make claims about 60-70% of the population, which leaves a very wide margin for the 'minorities'.
The other interesting thing is that there are a lot of underlying similarities amongst wide ranges of mental techniques. Many people who have tried a variety of things like meditation, hypnosis, Feldenkrais, NLP, and so on would probably be able to talk about some of these similarities using some fuzzy language (as I sometimes am prone to do) - like "awareness", "presence", "focus", "attention", "pattern", "habit", "freedom", "choice", "illusion" and so on.
Well, that was my shot at it. I think I can do better, but I wanted to get this discussion going. If someone understands what I am saying and agrees that the scientific skeptics have a point, and agrees that the way the article states it is rather poor, then I would love to see that someone give it a go. Thanks! --mporch 01:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The July 20 addition

I'm a little concerned that the July 20 edit adding material refuting some criticism, and the other paragraph below in that section also refuting criticism, have a tone that becomes too conversational with the reader, as though we are giving the reader personal advice on how to balance competing claims. As has been expressed above on this page, I think there is a valid point being made here that needs to be phrased in a more objective, specific manner that ties into the subject of the movement and its critics, rather than drawing the reader aside into a sort of private conversation. --Gary D 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --mporch 22:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "refutations" are also inadequate, which accounts in part for the propagandistic tone. The refutation of the claim that HP is pseudoscientific is, the way I read it, pseudoscientific itself. The argument seems to be that mental techniques work for some people but not others – well, who do they work for and who not? If you can't specify that with evidence you're just speculating. The second criticism is just speculation, as well. No evidence is presented. Anyway, the article needs a lot of work not just in that section but throughout. John FitzGerald 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to take the POV out of the refutations. Saying something is true doesn't make it true. What needs to be supplied here are the results of properly controlled studies which support the contention that specific techniques are useful. I say specific techniques because of course evidence that all the techniques are useful is unlikely to available. John FitzGerald 02:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roots/Esalen

I reverted the Roots section to what it was before the long passage about George Leonard was substituted for it, and then moved the encyclopedic part of the passage about Leonard to the Esalen section, where most of it belongs. I think I'll go back and add a note about Leonard to the Roots section, though. Anyway, much of the passage about Leonard was unencyclopedic, and more wasn't really necessary in this article because there is a separate article about him. The passage also smelt of copyright. I'm not saying that it's used without permission, but some reassurance is necessary.

Esalen also is clearly not part of the roots of the movement, which go back to the 40s. John FitzGerald 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Turned out the article about George Leonard was about another George Leonard, so I started an article about this one. John FitzGerald 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And it turned out there was an article about this George Leonard, namely George Burr Leonard, so I redirected my attempt to it and added a couple of things. John FitzGerald 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Comment

It's amazing for me to have finally stumbled across this page and its tracing of this movement, having had a personal breakthrough do to self-actualization (a term I learned in high school Health) and the realization that my life's ultimate goals should be in awakening other people's untapped potential and encourage growth and education. I've never read a self-help book, nor had a person recommend any of this to me. My experience with all of this is largely from conclusions I drew myself, so it's interesting to find base for my personal beliefs in larger philosophies.

Does anyone else feel like weighing in on personal comments about this movement? Cybertooth85 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "happiness, creativity, and fulfillment"

If I'm interpretting the human potential movement properly, then words such as "happiness, creativity, and fulfillment" should not be used in such an unqualified manner. If I can tap my fullest potential, why would I be happy or fulfilled? Maybe I would become more unfulfilled and unhappy. These adjectives should be avoided in a neutral article.

You're right about the realization of potential not necessarily producing happiness etc., but the point is that the human potential movement believes it does, so using those terms is not POV but simply a description of the movement. John FitzGerald 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Loth Liebman

Doesn't the human potential movement really go back to Joshua Loth Liebman and his bestseller Peace of Mind (1946)? John FitzGerald 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plumb; A critique of the HPM

Hi all. For anyone who's interested, there is a major critique of the HPM by Plumb,L.D. 1993 isbn 0-8153-0777-2. It looks at Maslow, Rogers, and Perls. I guess this may also apply well to the Humanistic Psychology article. There is an interesting element that says Edwin Schur identified some key elements: Openness to imediate experience;denigration of the intellect; and being "real" as opposed to playing a social role. ONe criticsim is that self-realization takes one away from social concerns too much. One argument says that Americans have never been strong on ocial consciousness. Thus, Schur states that the movement's popularity is rooted in complacency. Peter Martin referred to the HPM as the "new narcissism" and argued that these are the expressions of the "growing solipsism of and desperation of a beleaguered class". Martin doesn't say it is complacency, rather that it is neither simple greed nor moral blindness, but it is instead the unrealized shame of having failed the world and not knowing what to do about it. Christopher Lasch's analysis differs from both the prior. He argued that the HPM is the result of the warlike condidtions that pervade American society, from the dangers and uncertainty that surround us in abundance, and from the loss of confidence in the future. He says that the defensiveness concerning the "shallowness of society" gives rise to the "living here and now" so as not to seek value in the unreliable world outside of yourself. The tragedy being; these defensive responses to the loss of community contribute to the further denigration of society. The last line of the book is interesting "In the final analysis, the HPM constituted and anathema to the attempt to gain self-understanding ad to create an ethical society of persons. The HPM has apparently disintegrated, although aspects of the consciousness revolution will continue for some time" I can provide page numbers if folk are interested. Savoylettuce 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Another interesting source of criticism on the HPM is W. R. Coulson who studied/worked with Abraham Maslow and also worked with Carl Rogers for quite some time.

See

Malangthon 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Wilber

Some of the best and most balanced criticism of the HPM, looking at both its significant contributions as well as the not-so-hidden narcissistic underbelly that it often (and often unwittingly) supports is from Ken Wilber. See "Eye to Eye," "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," and "The Eye of Spirit" (among others). He is quite critical of the HPM, despite being close with leaders in that field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.182.104 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Links

The following links do not comply with WP:EL standards:

  • Personal Growth on Island Foundation
Should be avoided: 9 - Links to search engine and aggregated results pages
  • Salerno, Steve (2005). SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless. New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-5409-5.
Should be avoided: 9 - Links to search engine and aggregated results pages
Though it is looking for an ISBN, it is a search engine with potentially other off-topic results
The link does not direct to a specific article.

Lsi john 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • However, that is actually standard practice as per the ISBN project on Wikipedia. Smee 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] POV Tags

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)