Thank you Sue for expressing that so well for us.
I was one of those who was threatened when neurocare pro went
auomatic. what will be my role? I knew alot about what protocals were
good for what and was good at it. all of my knowledge was made
useless in a day :-)
Luckily I went to an immersive shortly after that and was introduced
to the idea of being present for the client (and myself)and how to
use this increased freedom to work on more important things, mainly
myself and my relationship with the client.
My results were greatly improved as the clients felt the difference
in the quality of our relationship as well as the improvement in the
software. as good as I was at finding areas of difficulty and giving
feedack based on that, the computer was much much better :-). now
that I was not distracted by tech stuff I was free to do activities
like mindfulness meditation or tonglen which can be felt by the
client since they are in a quiet open state. There is research
showing the improved quality of the relationship between those who
meditate together and from what I have seen with clients , this is
true. we bond within one or two sessions. Even the most resistant and
suspicious of clients will trust me within the first session because
they are quiet enough (thanks to neurocarepro)to feel the real me ,
and I am quiet enough(thanks to neurocarepro)to be the real me and be
felt.


Meg


-- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Sue Brown" <sue@...>
wrote:
>
> HI Sebern,
> I liked your comment:
> the most important thing that neurofeedback can do is to enhance
our
> capacity to relate to one another.
> Absolutely! The more clear and present we can be without turmoil
of
> one sort or another (anxiety, trauma, headpain, you name it) the
> greater our capacity to be connected to self and other.
> That has been a definite emphasis for us. As the software
> (NeuroCARE™) has become increasingly easy to run (the expertise
> being built in, if you will) so our emphasis in training has been
on
> the trainer ability to be present to their client, to the client's
> "journey" as we call it, and to their transformation. Our bi-
annual
> Immersive event is all about community, which is a natural
extension
> relationship to self and other. It certainly is not about
technology,
> which thankfully fades into the background the more powerfully and
> seamlessly it works.
> I think originally, as we anticipated the evolution of the
software
> and the technology both, we practitioners 'worried" about "what am
I
> going to do" when the software can do it "without" me, whereas
now
> it is more "I wish I didn't have to set the difficulty level- it
> draws me away (however briefly) from my relationship with my
client".
> Sue
> Sue Cheshire Brown Ph.D.
>
> 
> www.zengar.com
>
> All Truth goes through three stages:
> First it is ridiculed
> Then it is violently opposed
> Finally, it is accepted as self-evident....
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Sebern Fisher wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Val,
> >
> >
> >
> > I really don’t think there can be any comparison to personal
> > computers, IPods or the like in the discussion of neurofeedback,
> > except in the very limited realm of engineering and
accessibility.
> > The implicit frame of your argument seems to be that all we need
in
> > this venture is better software - that the venture itself is
about
> > a single brain making itself “better”. If this is your
> > assumption, I don’t share it. To me, the most important thing
that
> > neurofeedback can do is to enhance our capacity to relate to one
> > another. I think the most significant contribution that
> > neurofeedback makes in this regard is the reduction of fear.
When
> > you drain the fear out, everything changes. If you fail to do
this
> > the consequences are equally profound. There really has to be an
> > other there, the one who is monitoring, caring, understanding
and
> > interpreting the changes. As a friend of mine put it, “a
> > devotional presence.” We are always working within the universe
of
> > at least two brains.
> >
> > So to me, neurofeedback is so profoundly not about the
technology.
> > In the realms that I think are most profound, increasing access
has
> > its hazards. I think it is important to recognize that. That
being
> > said, I have no doubt that we will advance technologically much
> > faster than we do interpersonally. It seems the human way. It is
> > just that this technology, unlike any other, allows us,
> > potentially, to keep pace. We only have a shot at this if we
> > recognize this particular potential of neurofeedback.
> >
> >
> >
> > People will, no doubt, have increasing access to brain training
> > technology. Will this lead them/us to more access to each other?
> > That, to me, is the most important question.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sebern
> >
> > From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:29 PM
> > To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Recent Events in Neurofeedback
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been reviewing some of the recent "events" in the field of
> > neurofeedback and thought
> > that I might post a few observations. Some would say it's a rant
> > but, then again, some
> > want to say that whatever I say is a rant. Certainly I'm up on a
> > soap box a bit so....
> >
> > I noticed a recent posting concerning neurofeedback and
the "need"
> > for highly trained
> > professional involvement in home training. It's an interesting
> > position to take -- one very
> > reminescent of the stance taken by IT professionals in the early
> > days of PCs. Nowdays, of
> > course, the PC you're using to read this post is likely to be
x100
> > more poweful than what
> > those antiquated IT professionals used. We now have GPS, VOIP,
data
> > mining and
> > Googling with virtually unlimited access to the accumulated
> > knowledge of researchers
> > around the world -- and it's available at the touch of a button,
> > drag of a mouse.
> >
> > Putting such power in the hands of "ordinary citizens" was
> > essentially unthinkable -- and
> > terrifying! to those who DID think about it --not even 15 years
> > ago. Now, it's as ho-hum
> > as firing up your iPod or dialing the telephone. Technology
changes
> > everything and that's
> > especially true in a technological intensive field like
> > neurofeedback. The reality is that,
> > with the right system, one doesn't need to be an "expert" --
this
> > is true in terms of GPS
> > navigation, trip planning, financial matters and many, many
other
> > areas. It is really only
> > some very backwards thinking that leads people to believe
> > otherwise. Well that, and the
> > kinds of trainings systems that they use. If you use a limited
> > system it may very well
> > require a lot of knowledge, expertise and training before it can
be
> > used well. Newer, well
> > designed systems -- like NeuroCARE -- are just easier to use,
more
> > comprehensive and
> > fault-tolerant. It's like the difference between DOS and Vista
or
> > other GUI-intensive
> > computer systems.
> >
> > The better and more complete the system, the less expertise and
> > knowledge is required of
> > the typical user -- it's really quite simple in that regard.
> >
> > However, the discussions in and around this field continue to
> > support the belief in the
> > necessity and intrinsic value in professional-intensive services
> > like QEEG,
> > neuropsychological assessment, etc in order to
provide "effective
> > and safe" neurofeedback.
> > It's really quite amazing to watch -- esp when those same
> > discussions are peppered with
> > (very low key) acknowledgements that the expert-driven systems
do
> > not give increased,
> > incremental effectiveness when compared amongst themselves -- or
> > even when
> > contrasted with non-expert driven approaches.
> >
> > Now does that mean that experts and expertise won't be useful in
> > the future? Of course
> > note -- even though typical home users systems dwarf the
> > capabilities of the NSA of 25
> > years ago, the realm for expertise continues to expand. It's
just
> > not needed for the day to
> > day, typical uses of computers. And that's the point. The
> > technology should make
> > training more accessible to more people with lessened need for
> > specialization so that,
> > when useful, specialized expertise can be fruitfully brought to
> > bear. You no longer need
> > an IT specialist to setup your home network, connect to the
> > internet and have access to
> > virtually unlimited knowledge and possibilities.
> >
> > Why should it be different re: neurofeedback?
> >
> > And while we're using the term neurofeedback, let's clarify
> > something. Neurofeedback
> > requires the use of FEEDBACK -- ie a "real-time" monitoring of
some
> > system parameter(s)
> > the value(s) of which can be "fed back" to the system that
> > generates those values with the
> > feedback being able to MODIFY the CURRENT status of the system.
If
> > there is no "real-
> > time" monitoring occurring, then no matter how useful or
> > interesting the process involved,
> > it can't be neurofeedback because it doesn't involve any
possible
> > FEEDBACK.
> >
> > We need to be clear that using the term neurofeedback to
describe
> > or refer to approaches
> > like pROSHI or LENS is simply inaccurate and misleading. This is
> > not to say that those
> > system aren't being used by many with good success. This is
simply
> > clarifying
> > terminology so we all can talk together. No real-time
monitoring,
> > no feedback -- it can't
> > be neuroFEEDBACK. Perhaps neuroTHERAPY is more apt, but
> > neurofeedback is clearly
> > wrong.
> >
> > Terminology is important because it links us to other domains,
> > other communities and
> > other sources of knowledge and perspective. For this reason I
> > continue to observe that
> > the term "disentrainment" (used to describe pROSHI and LENS
among
> > others) is an
> > oxymoron. The proper term is "entrain and migrate" where
> > entrainment is what is done (ie
> > a specific crafting of the non-feedback stimulus in terms of
> > frequency, amplitude, phase,
> > intensity, etc) and migration is the intended effect (ie moving
the
> > system from where it is
> > currently "parked"). "Entrainment and Migration" is a well
> > understood phenomenon in the
> > world of Non-linear Dynamical engineering and it really behooves
us
> > IMO and IME to not
> > only be aware of that literature but to utilize many of the
> > concepts, terms and processes
> > developed within that literature to better understand and
provide
> > neurofeedback training.
> >
> > OK, I'm coming down off the soap box now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>