Zen in a gray box
touching the deep heart
leaves no trace or argument.



On Jan 9, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Valdeane W. Brown, Ph.D. wrote:

> Gillis,
>
> There are a lot of different issues/threads in all of this.  Let’s
> break it up a bit so it’s easier to stay focused on one thing at a
> time.
>
> There is one core element in all of this that I really want to
> highlight though because it really does go to the heart of the issue;
> moreover, one aspect of it is a gateway to truly profound
> transformation for both client and trainer.  I’m going to collect a
> copy of quotes from your reply.
>
> G:> “How necessary is EEG map or seeing real time EEG? Well, I want
> to see it. Maybe not so necessary for the client , or function , but
> it can give me a better idea of whats going on for the client. Knowing
> how to read an EEG and having at least some knowledge of what ever we
> know about functional neurobiology is helpful for me at least, and in
> knowing and learning about it , I think the client is more confidant.
> “
> v:> “...want to see it” is different from “...necessary to see it”
> and that’s a critical point here.  All of the dialogue around QEEG,
> raw EEG, etc begins with “...is a great addition to...” and then turns
> into some form of “...is necessary for providing neurofeedback” and
> the truth is that QEEG, raw EEG, etc is NOT at all necessary when
> using NeuroCARE.   For anyone to say otherwise is really misuse
> language and, as far as the use of those techniques “adding value” to
> NeuroCARE, I have yet to see ANY clear data documenting that belief —
> and, as you point out, it is all “...about belief systems”.
>
> A core thing that NeuroCARE supports is personal transformation not
> only of the client but, perhaps more important and more fundamentally,
> of the trainer.  And a key component of personal transformation is
> letting go of limiting beliefs, esp beliefs of what is “needed” or
> what one “must, should, ought to” do.  This is core CBT (Cognitive
> Behavioral Therapy): all “mustabatory” thinking is inaccurate (a
> cognitive distortion) unless one is clear about the want that
> frames/motivates it.  If you want to go to Paris, and you’re currently
> in New York, then you MUST get a plane or ship ticket or pilot your
> own craft: it’s a bit too far to swim!  But there is no NEED to get
> transportation unless you want to go to Paris.
>
> re: your PTSD client, you may well find that, if we looked over the
> data, I could give you points where NeuroCARE itself could have been
> used more effectively (most likely in how the Difficulty level could
> have been set far, far lower) and, if we did that, we might well find
> what the beliefs were that prompted doing something else.  Perhaps it
> was a belief about how “comfortable” clients need to be, or about how
> they need to understand what is happening to them, or, or, or.
>
> Having done this kind of work for several decades now — with
> NeuroCARE as a basis as well as long before that — I very, very
> strongly suspect that to be the case.  And, what may be more important
> to this thread, I HOPE to be proven wrong and to be shown data that
> shows how, in what ways, NeuroCARE can be improved.
>
> As an aside one improvement that is coming down the pike with v2 is
> AutoNav.  This will mean that the trainer doesn’t even have to adjust
> the Difficulty level because the program will do that automatically
> based on the client’s response to the training.  If we really want to
> be data-based in our training efforts, and the data that we based
> training on happens in the EEG, then the truth is that a computer will
> necessarily do a better job of real-time detecting, collating and
> calculating the significance of those EEG events than a human being
> can.  Computers crunch numbers and humans can’t compete with that at a
> pure number-crunching level and, if what we’re doing is really
> EEG-based, that means it’s really all about numbers.
>
> Here is where the real rubber hits the road around beliefs about EEG,
> neurofeedback and human trainers/experts.  And I’ll leave it at this
> for now as I suspect — and hope — that this will provoke further
> discussion.  IMO this is a core issue in the field and one that is
> worthy of in-depth consideration by all of us, esp those who
> understand that neurofeedback is intrinsically a non-linear, dynamical
> process and that means not only that it involves self-regulation but
> self-organization and autopoesis.
>
> val
>
---

Michael Andes