Talk:Medical intuitive/Comments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medical intutitive 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) strongtogether (domain name:) dslextreme.com I posted this once to comments and either I posted it incorrectly or it was removed. Posting it again.
I'm the person who updated the page wholesale In June 07. I even joined the Wiki Skeptics group. No mail from them yet.
Short version of comments-
As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a Wiki page on M.I.s, for public introduction, should inevitably use Carolyn Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has grown or failed.
This page should NOT have a general discussion of psychics.
It should help readers distinguish between the older model of "psychics" and the newer, more professional model of "medical intuitive"
Because the overlap of psychics, intuitives, energy workers, shamans etc is so great, a compare and contrast section is required. See the one posted. As the old article makes clear, the field of intuitive practitioners is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.
Long version of comments -
The old page was very dated. It mentions Carolyn Myss but does not highlight her significance. The old page lumps Myss into virtually the same group as psychics from the 1950s and 1960s. This does her and the field of MI a tremendous disservice, a slight and an insult!
The significance of Myss to MI was to define a level of professionalism and objectivity beyond the character of psychics from 1950s. People working as MIs strive to have a level of objectivity quite in contrast with 1950-style psychics and it's useful and healthy for readers to be able to discriminate this difference today in the field.
Myss spawned a new more professional level of intuitive practitioner, one who cooperates and collaborates with Mds and Dos in solving problems. Christel Nani, Karen Grace Kasey MUST be mentioned. These are the famous people taking over where Myss left off in her 1:1 practice with clients. Up and coming people include Maryann Castellanos.
The people mentioned in the old article, Parkhurst Quimby, can easily be seen to be only extremely distnat cousins to the example of Myss. Why include them? If you want a history of psychics, put that info there. As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a page on Mis, for public introduction, should inevitably use Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has been built out. It should also have a compre and contrast section, like I have, because, as the old article makes clear, the field is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.
The International Association of MIS (IAMI) needs to be mentioned and is not. It's shortcomings could be usefully addressed.
I agree that listing of Mis is not a good precedent.
I'm replacing the new page again. Please make comments here on WHY it is inappropriate. Comments are of course welcome.
