snowymountains

@Giles I wouldn't put psychotherapy in the second bracket, it's in both. It's really broad field, it includes approaches that start from pathology and tend to be supported by lots of RCTs, to rather spiritual approaches like Jungian or Psychosynthesis, to other stuff that is also not linked to pathology like narrative therapy. Some of it is "evidence-based" , some isn't, some is spiritual, some isn't. Psychotherapy has huge breadth.

I'm not sure, if e.g. I go and do to a room and someone does neurofeedback to me, it will be obvious they're doing neurofeedback. It won't be blinded, any outcome will be affected by expectations. Blind experiments are clearly preferable but they're not always possible. To what granularity do you ask for, ultimately it's a question for neuroscience but operant conditioning has been shown to be a real effect by behaviouralists. Correct but while indeed the body remembers, "so does the mind" ( McNally ) I don't believe it is energetic, as in no use of an energetic systems needs to be involved directly - placebo typically is induced with words when the client can focus on them. It is very strong, it literally shows the power the conscious mind can sometimes have over the body and the unconscious mind. Placebo has tremendous power, agreed. I'd take a slightly different route, it's the operant conditioning, not the neurofeedback per se, the neurofeedback delivers operant conditioning. Placebo is not the same, e.g. one difference is that results from operant conditioning tends to be much more long-lasting. One can of course use placebo and then deliver operant conditioning. Also possible to induce placebo through operant conditioning. There can be an interplay between the two, combining them is very strong. In the other thread you mentioned pain control. In pain control there is a mix of placebo first, then operant conditioning via imaginary dial. So the two can be correlated but conceptually they are different. That said the if neurofeedback can deliver operant conditioning with efficacy, then why not ? All this is correct, some techniques are about leveraging the body-mind so that the body will affect the mind - eg when vocal cords are without muscle tone, then we cannot think, if eyes are completely relaxed, then we cannot visualise images and lots of others. So sometimes the body is used to affect the mind. That does not mean this is where the work stops. I am not a fan of pathologising at all btw, someone who cannot verbalise or regulate their emotions may need 3-4 years of talk therapy with Person Centered, Gestalt, Psychodynamics or whatevs - this doesn't reduce the value from starting with CBT to reduce suffering from symptoms is, nor to still apply cognitive restructuring longer term if that is applicable. When the symptoms go away, there's no pathology but there may still be work to be done. Modalities that work with pathologies are very good at that, other modalities may be more suitable for other goals though. Imo two different modalities are not enemies, they provide different points of view, different techniques and this is a good thing. Pathologising is extremely problematic though when used in isolation and when it is overused. This is question of how psychoeducation around this should be done. Dependency is horrible but a therapist can do the psychoeducation as "you will (learn to) use the power of your mind" and give credit to the client for any progress, the therapist "just showed how to score like a coached, the client scored", they've learnt it, it's theirs and now, they own it - this is the common way to do it, e.g. in acceptance psychoeducation. There's a lot of subtlety to this craft that may not appear in the RCTs/publications I agree to this, I don't find it linked to the above directly (so not specific to neurofeedback, operant conditioning, placebo) but I'll share my point of view with this. I feel ( cannot prove nor disprove ) there's a part of us that is from the "source" and we are also receivers of dreams with symbolism behind which hide archetypes. Jung was spot on, no matter how modern psychologists want to pretend he never existed, I believe the source of these things to be ...nature ( believe, cannot prove nor disprove ). This is if you like an anti-placebo in that it's something coming from the opposite direction. Now in practical terms what does this mean ? it means if e.g. someone cannot express their emotions and cannot speak, there is a chance that they are not living according to the needs of their organism in C. Rogers lingo. In that sense it is energetics, someone's vital energy not being directed where their organism wants it directed. Personally I don't have a clue on the somatisation of the energy routes ( e.g. meridians ), though there may be a linkage. Tbh I haven't managed to find something on somatisations of these energetics. This is the real risk in a symptoms only approach, but I view this this as a misuse of a symptoms only approach, which of course is more likely to happen when training is only on approaches that start from a pathology. But it's how the wider system is designed socially and financially that are to be blamed for this, some approaches that start from pathologies themselves are excellent.

If I got what you say right, it is within the domain of science Gate theory+placebo+operant conditioning can mute pain, no additional mechanics needed. But let's continue in the other thread.

Made a new thread dedicated to neurofeedback, I also touch upon what you mention at the end of your post there. I see what you mean and yes the two are not separate universes, induction of placebo can be done in many ways. The reverse is also true, during induction of placebo someone may use a bit of operand conditioning. ( Chronic) Pain is also very interesting for both placebo and operant conditioning. It's possible to entirely switch it off ( consistent with gate theory on pain ) - didn't touch upon that in the new thread. Maybe even neurofeedback techniques could be used for pain. I don't see an obvious reason as to why not and after all an imaginary dial is often used in pain control techniques (which does operant conditioning).

@Shadow_self , @Giles

In pure research yes, in behavioural therapy where sessions > 1 it's difficult. Exactly, that's eg the whole basis of non-state models for hypnotherapy. I'm not quoting you more about the quality of research, agreed it's low. I'd go even further beyond the profits of pharma, that evidence based protocols imply structured sessions, which may not suit every client/person/patient. And this is not a statement against CBT, it's actually fantastic ❤️, it's about eg the misuse of what "evidence-based" means in national healthcare. I haven't asked them as I'm not doing neurofeedback, but I do trust their judgement. Depends what you mean too, ie why is neurofeedback research worse than eg CBT research? Also some things work even though an evidence basis is difficult to form, eg one cannot gather evidence when there's no protocol as is the case for some modalities ( eg recently I had brought this up here for Gestalt ). Agreed on state of dependence not being healthy and any tool/modality/technique should strive in the opposite direction. But is it the tool that created the dependency or its misuse? I also had worked in a world class institution, not as a psy, in a previous life. I've seen complete BS going from a shoddy paper to public display during 5 mins during BBC's newstime (only for a decade+ later for someone to publish the obvious, that the result was wrong). I'm not defending the average research quality here. Without also implying that everyone is doing low quality research. Agreed let's continue it there. My main question is why would it be any worse than other forms of operant conditioning, I don't see an obvious reason - but again, neurofeedback is not an area I know.

Sure , one of us may link that recent paper on psychedelics, holding an unfavourable view of psychedelics, before were out 😁. Didn't bookmark unfortunately but will try to Google to find it again in the evening.

In general ( can't really comment on neurofeedback in specific) placebo and operant conditioning are different things, that may have the same degree of effectiveness when used as treatments though.

That's a wider issue, easy like ABC, pathologise everything, no insurance coverage without a DSM code and of course if (when?) in the future the DSM is 1000000 pages long, every single person on the planet will be under some pathology and thus may get a prescription. Maybe dogs will get prescriptions too, if that becomes reality ( there's a very real risk it will ). Your points are all valid but they're broader than neurofeedback. So what's worse specifically for neurofeedback? - genuine question, and well intended.

He's basically right to point out the absence of blind studies, it's just that studies are non-blinded across the board ( because they can't be, someone can just Google in-between sessions and understand what treatment they receive ), and thus evidence basis is sub par compared to what they call evidence-based other fields. But this is not specific to neurofeedback, it's a broader issue. Interesting you want to integrate it in this way, curious to hear why. Without having ever trained in neurofeedback, my thoughts were in the opposite direction, that it may be used as an adjunct to "evidence-based" ( hate this term but different discussion) modalities, which in turn though mostly go hand in hand with a diagnosis/psychopathology. My assumption was that someone will anyhow feel ( may be projecting here, I'd feel ) like a "patient" during neurofeedback anyhow and it seems too intervention-y as it involves equipment. It's a form of operant conditioning anyhow.

@Shadow_self not specifically for neurofeedback, that I don't know much about, blind studies are rarely used in non-medical/non-pharma therapies because it's easy for the subject to understand which therapy they are receiving, so they won't be blind in reality, unlike when e.g. they swallow a pill. That's why they're often called RCT, with "blind" being absent from the acronym. Also keep in mind that in general e.g. talk therapies may perform as placebo does, but the effects may be long lasting, and hence superior, so unlike pharmaceutical treatments, placebo in some cases is not an appropriate benchmark. Also, do not underestimate leveraging placebo itself as a therapeutic mean. Not specific to neurofeedback but to address the absence of blind studies and how placebo fits into the picture. Specifically to neurofeedback, no clue really, don't know much about it, but I do know some very well educated and trained people who integrate use of neurofeedback and I'm sure their decision is an informed one.

The one where if a lion eats us everything is kaput for us, the only reality. Unlike a dream, where all sorts of things can happen after a lion eats us.

( Bold is mine ) I think that's the crux of non duality. I wasn't planning to write on this as not in a mood for long posts but in short, what we see in a dream or vision in non-dual. The experience of archetypes is a non-dual one. As we all share archetypes and have a shared core, there is an element of non-duality in our experience. The real world is dual though, it's not a dream, so there is an element of duality in our experience as well. This is an important distinction.

No, one is of course free to adopt it Not even that, it's his subjective reality and of course he's free to interpret it however he wants What I'm saying is that this is not an objective argument in favour and it's impossible to have a discussion based on arguments along the lines of ~this is so because my teacher is enlightened because another teacher says he is~. He's entirely free to believe the lineage argument of course. In any case there can be no definite argument in favour of non-duality, just as there can be none for dual philosophies, they're point of views.

Many philosophies are experiential, I brought this up before. For whatever reason you choose the view is that your non-dual philosophy is the only experiential one, it is simply untrue. It does get a bit circular though when for whatever reason the arguments made are i) your philosophy is the only experiential one and ii)your teachers are fully realised therefore they know etc etc. There's also little point in discussing in this way. You want to believe your teachers and their self proclaimed enlightenment. You are of course free to do so, but but others are also free to find this argument lackluster.

According to you and your fully realised teachers that have been pointed out by other fully realised teachers, it is. According to other people it is not. Of course you prefer to hear your teachers, which is fine. However, one thing to realise how you or your teachers choose to call themselves is irrelevant as far as arguments in favour or against an experiential philosophy are concerned.

no it's not, saying so just says it is correct because it is correct, a self-referential piece of evidence

Most of philosophy is experiential, non-dual ones didn't copyright that for sure. Non-dual philosophies are also experiential

One can say the same for God or archetypes though, they cannot be objectively proven. Imo it's not delusional to adopt a non-dual philosophy, experientially adopt it that is. What is odd though is to expect others to adopt it as if there are no other options.

Do slaves have choices ? He may not change his pov, that's his ...choice, it's not my concern anyhow

Maybe though Santa is seeing non-duality as something objectively true. It's fine to like/endorse a non dual philosophy, this doesn't make it any truer than others

Thanks, but it's a no It's not the thread I participated in though.

Of course it's a choice, which is why not everyone adopts it, and as with any point of view, it shines light on some aspects and hides others

I did, is there a reason to copy it into a different thread?

Personally speaking the non-dual is a point of view to consider, not "the point of view". Above I read remarks when it comes to ethics, which is the thorny point of the non-dual point of view. No easy answers with respect to that but on some stuff everyone can agree they are bad, i.e. a murder, imo it is productive to judge the action but not the person. E.g. If I had been really in their shoes, with born with identical brain chemistry, had the same upbringing, the same difficulties growing up etc, would I had acted differently? It is easy to say yes, but the honest answer is I don't know. So the non-dual point of view, for me at least, allows to stretch empathy to more groups of people. It also allows to be empathetic to our own shadow. However, examining things from a point of view is no excuse to shed personal responsibility and personally engage in unethical behavior. Ultimately there's no panacea and a point of view has its pluses and minuses, the non-dual pov too has its pluses and minuses.