Here I disagree... When I go to such conferences, there are always people I talk to for whom Val's position makes intuitive sense.  And he does a far better job than I.  It will be good to bring them into the fold when Val starts attending again..
 
Thomas M Brod MD, DFAPA
Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry,
Geffen UCLA School of Medicine
12304 Santa Monica Blvd #210
Los Angeles CA 90025
310.207-3337
http://tbrod.bol.ucla.edu


On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:49 PM, John Thompson wrote:

Val,
That is very interesting. It makes sense that standardized scores, norms, averages etc are not compatible with NDS based neurofeedback. It seems that to use these as a reference point would actually inhibit the transformational process. After all nothing stays the same and to formulate ideal brain states or norms as the goal sounds limiting and akin to the Buddhist notion of grasping. I think this is also one of the limitations of entrainment methods.
 
I also take your point about why you do not wish to participate in the linear and classical based conferences. The people attracted to them as participants are most likely to come out of that framework and yes they would find your information very challenging. I look forward to the time that we have NDS based neurofeedback conferences. That would be fantastic.
John
 
 

From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 4:45 AM
To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Re: Sieg's recent newsletter
 
 

John,

So here's the thing. What they do, and what they present on, is either something we already done (and have done for years) OR it's completely irrelevant to what we do, meaning it simply isn't relevant.

So, for instance, now the big buzz is (apparently) z-score based training. And it's not bad, at least in some theoretical ways. There are problems with it though, esp in how it's actually implemented. For one thing, a z-score is a linear mathematical concept. NLD/NDS mathematics work much better since we are actually dealing with the CNS and it is clearly NLD/NDS. But the other real problem lies with the idea that there is an "ideal" central tendency for ALL brains and that training needs to be oriented towards migrating EVERY brain back towards that central tendency, wherever that brain happens to be.

It is a slight twist on the Lake Wobegone idea that "all of our children are above average". Most people are so seduced by Gaussian stats that they really do believe that "average" means something important. And, therefore, being ABOVE average might be even better; so Peak Performance means being "above average" rather than "at your personal optimal level".

A related issue is that it's really clear that the "norms" aren't useful, esp not for the purpose of neurofeedback training. At best they give very clumsy "guides" for what might be useful for some severe deficits, but the truth is that there simply isn't enough data to support those "guides" from the point of view of real normative database statistics. We're still probably 10 years away --at best! -- from having that level of data collected, collated and analyzed in meaningful ways. And, even if we DID have that level of data analysis, neurofeedback is done using different technology than the data that is collected and submitted for QEEG-based analyses so there would still be a real question as to how useful the QEEG-based conclusions would be when applied to fundamentally different data (ie the data actually used during neurofeedback).

Similarly, "protocol-based" decision making is irrelevant to what we do. Our comprehensive, adaptive targeting "covers the waterfront" AND adapts itself to the Client's real-time training data AS training happens. So what choices are needed?

So the overwhelming amount of information presented at those conferences is really of no use whatsoever to how we do neurofeedback training.

Now let's turn the question around and ask can presenting what we do at those conferences be useful to others? And the answer to that is, most likely not at all. The real reason for that is that what we do can ONLY be done using NeurOptimal. No other system can work in the same way. So what would others learn? Basically that they would need to replace their current equipment (or at least extend it with a new purchase) and how much do you think others want to hear that? Esp if they've already invested heavily in an alternative approach, and esp one that relies so much on expensive diagnostic or assessment procedures?

It's just too cognitively dissonant.

That's a real shame IMO but "that's the way it is", to gloss Walter Cronkite.

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com> , "Valdeane W. Brown, Ph.D." <valdeanebrown@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Interesting questions and the short answer is that those conferences are not
> only unimportant, in many ways they are irrelevant. And, yes, no longer
> participating in that arena has been a very good thing.
>
> val
>
>
> On 11/08/09 2:25 AM, "John Thompson" <forumnhtc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Val,
> > Invariable the shift will come because of the outstanding advantages of a
> > system such as NeurOptimal that works with process in this way. As threatened
> > as the people are who have big investment in classical approaches they cannot
> > continue to suppress , degrade or ignore the information coming out of
> > nonlinear approaches. After all the results speak for themselves and there is
> > accumulating evidence of efficacy such that the growing mountain is becoming
> > visible. The bigger it gets the harder it is to obscure with the mist of
> > deception and ignorance or divert peopleï¿∏s attention from it. That some are
> > now claiming it as their own is perhaps an extension of pre-existing
> > attitudes. I guess it is somewhat satisfying to have Siegfried acknowledge you
> > pioneering work in the nfb field.
> >
> > I think that to stop participating in the field these people control was a
> > very good thing to do. That simply enabled them to target the innovators more
> > easily. It seems that by removing ourselves from these forums has enabled the
> > nonlinear nfb field to begin to self organize and gain strength within its own
> > right. Do you see a time when you again involve yourself in those conferences
> > or do you think the nonlinear nfb approach is gaining enough momentum so that
> > they become increasingly unimportant.
> > John Thompson