amypowerhands wrote:Don't we always learn the effectiveness of a modality when we learn it? Don't we usually hear what makes that modality different than others?
yes, and yes, hopefully.
Don't we usually hear what makes that modality better than others? Why would anyone learn and try to master a modality if they thought it was only just as effective as another?
No, and huh?
I've taken a couple of classes from very well-known instructors, one with a "patented" technique. Both were amazing classes that added greatly to my effectiveness as a therapist. Both explained very clearly why their methods were effective, and both were also forthcoming about the effectiveness of other methods.
Come on people, a little forgiveness and understanding goes a long way. This forum is starting to remind me of parenting politics or religion. It seems that some people are searching for quotes within other posts in order to pick apart, interpret and ridicule. I'm not sure this promotes open communication.
I'm not sure it promotes open communication when people tout one particular method as superior, not believing that anything else can be so effective. We have over 3000 members on this board, many of them highly effective therapists. The numbers don't lie, and we have lots of stories about "miraculous" recoveries through MT. Only a fraction of these are trained in JFB-MFR. Only a fraction trained in MAT, a few in ART, some in CST... and lots more alphabet soup, eh?
Perhaps some of the reaction (from me anyways,) comes from meeting therapists in real life who practice one of the trademarked techniques exclusively, and experiencing them behaving as if I am just a hobbyist, and an ineffective one at that.
In spite of the condescending attitude toward therapists who are not JFB-MFR, I actually learn quite a lot from reading even the posts that I challenge, (maybe especially those ones.) Unfortunately, with others, (as in goodtouch2's 2nd post in this thread- the one I responded to,) there is very little information about the technique, instead lots of insinuation and opinion about why the other techniques don't measure up.
I too want to learn as much as I can, but I don't think it happens with a situation where someone says "this is the ONLY effective way to treat the body."
I think you're awesome if you use MFR (JFB or not), sometimes, all the time, or never. I have true respect for all of you, and all of your opinions, and I really thank those who have risked ridicule to share them. I want to learn as much as I can. I am not learning anything from pick-apart posts.
And as far as the picking apart of posts... I do that because I have the memory of a gnat, so if I break out the pieces I want to respond to, and put them in each section, things are much more coherent, and I do less talking in circles.
I also think therapists who specialize very narrowly are awesome. I sent my mother to a Bowen therapist last fall when she could barely walk with her RA flare-up. The therapist had her going back up and down stairs in only 3 sessions. Pretty dramatic, and as far as I know, she didn't mix it up.
The interesting thing about JFB is that he DOES "mix it up." Though he stays within the covering of MFR, originally the use of MFR was done either with "direct" or "indirect" techniques. As I understand it, JFB blended the two methods together in his training program. This is what I was taught to do in my integrative NMT classes.
I'm sorry you are not learning anything from the "pick-apart" posts. Since this is a "discussion" board, I will probably continue to do them. (Again, this is why we need the ignore button. People who don't want to see any discussion can put me on ignore. Wouldn't be the first time... )