Yes, that is what's amazing. The same ideas that were "impossible" or "wouldn't
work" etc are now being presented by those who said they weren't possible. And
the ideas are being presented AS IF just discovered or just implemented.

Now of course I do think that the ideas themselves are the most important aspect
of this and getting them "out there" to provide help to clients is what really
concerns me. And it's still pretty amazing to watch the same process happening
around it. And that is one of the major reasons that I stopped going to
conferences. The truth is that we just don't need to go. Our system already is
the easiest, safest and most comprehensive system around.

val

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Ebright" <mail@...> wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> To a large extent this is actually what you, Val, came up with already
> 10 years ago if I am not wrong : 5-phase-model!
>
> I wonder if this new view of Sieg finds its way into the big
> biofeedback-list on yahoo... I remember EVERYBODY was trashing you on
> that list for years - saying pretty much of what Sieg says now.. J!
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Valdeane W.
> Brown, Ph.D.
> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. August 2009 12:00
> An: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [neurofeedcommunity] Sieg's recent newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
> I continue to be amazes at how much Sieg gets right and, perhaps even
> more
> stunningly, what he gets wrong. It is real wonder how that conjunction
> occurs.
>
> In his latest newsletter Sieg does a good job (IMO) of summarizing a lot
> of
> the field. In particular he contextualizes what I would call "classical
> neurofeedback" fairly well and in doing so, does a pretty good job of
> stating a number of important limitations in that overall paradigm. He
> also
> does a fairly good job (again IMO) of summarizing a number of the
> divergences involved in the more innovative approaches, including ours,
> ROSHI and LENS, as well as his own. The problem is that he leaves out a
> lot
> of the story (and yes space limitations can be a real constraint) and
> that
> simply doesn't tell the truth on some other points. The whole thread can
> be
> seen at:
>
> http://www.eeginfo.com/newsletter/?p=432#more-432
>
> I've also posted a couple of notes to follow up to his original post.
>
> It is really interesting to watch how the field continues to "discover"
> what
> we originally did, but about 5 or more years later. I certainly
> appreciate
> the mention that Sieg makes of my complete abandonment of the classical
> paradigm. It is (again IMO) important to mention that and, since I've
> now
> withdrawn from presenting at what are called "the conferences" it would
> be
> easy for my name and Sue's to be completely forgotten. Thanks Sieg for
> the
> mention -- I do appreciate it. I would also appreciate you -- and others
> --
> telling the rest of the story, well really the rest of the stories, esp
> when
> the ideas of dynamic thresholding came from, what really CAN be done
> with
> Adaptive Gabor Transforms (esp in conjunction with Non-linear, Dynamical
> Control processes) and some others come into the conversation. Who
> knows,
> if that started happening, I might even go back and present at one of
> those
> events. Hey, stranger things have happened.... ;-)
>
> Really Sieg I do thank you for the mention in your newsletter. You
> really
> don't have to do it so it says a lot that you do.
>