Quote

"When the trappings of real science and research are appropriated for this kind of purpose, it further obscures to the public what science is actually about and also bilks people out of their money- and that really riles me." (quoted from below)

From the discussion on the NAFPS website about the POV

THis article was written in 2009.


However, here is a discussion from one man's blog, parts of which were quoted
on the NAFPL website.

The article is quoted here "Bad Ads"

[robteszka.wordpress.com]
Mind Factory
Science, psychology, and skepticism from a geek in London (formerly Vancouver)..

A Conversation re: POV ?
Bad Ads: Psychology of Vision and Light Healing Therapy
Posted on September 28, 2009 | 35 Comments

I see a lot of flyers around Kitsilano and Vancouver for a lot of bullshit, so there’s no shortage of Bad Ads to talk about. I’ll try to make it a weekly thing. Anyways, have a look at this one: lightTherapy

Given that I know a thing or two about the psychology of vision, my BS detector went off when I saw it being used among words like “divine” and “healing”. I checked out the “Psychology of Vision” website first.

It’s pretty slick looking: lots of pictures of starry skies and smiling people and stuff that sounds like “Psychology of Vision is both a healing model and a global community of like-minded people teaching and practising that model”. The also have several mentions of their seminars and products, including online courses for 45 pounds each.

I suppose there’s no harm in making money while helping people heal with your magical model, eh?

Nowhere on the site was there anything to do with what I, or any other actual psychologist, would understand as the psychology of vision.

Instead, they talk about how your life will be improved, how the community is loving, and how it’s based on the principles of Relationships, Leadership and Spirituality.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds kind of cultish to me!

The creators of POV are Chuck and Lency Spezzano. I quote from Chuck’s bio:

“Chuck shares wisdom and insight into the mysteries of the mind using psychological/spiritual language and metaphor. He has authored over 20 books and card decks that have been published in numerous languages worldwide”.

Yeah, card decks – the website sells them, and actually has a link to a 3 card tarot reading (though they obscure that under the guise of using “synchronicity” to “reveal deep insights”).

“Chuck has a B.A. in Philosophy and Psychology from Duquesne University followed by a Masters in Sociology and a Ph.D. in Counselling Psychology from the United States International University.”

Duquesne is a private, Catholic institution in Pittsburgh, and USIU is actually in Africa – neither is particularly well known for their psychology programs, or indeed rigorous adherence to the scientific method.

Lency’s bio is even better: “Lency is pioneering Psychology of Vision’s mystical path through her joining method, which utilizes the feminine, direct access to divine love, resulting in the release of emotional pain from the body/mind and the experience of miracles of forgiveness and grace.”

That’s a masterful load of crap if I’ve ever read one.

The point is, neither of these people have anything whatsoever to do with the actual psychology of vision, and the whole website appears to be designed to funnel money into the Spezzano’s bank accounts using cleverly dressed up tarot cards and crappy seminars.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was a touch of pyramid scheme to the whole deal, given that they train people to be trainers (the seminar in Vancouver is being put on by some local named KF (name omitted for privacy by Corboy) and harp on about community and leadership.

When the trappings of real science and research are appropriated for this kind of purpose, it further obscures to the public what science is actually about and also bilks people out of their money- and that really riles me.

Kiara also adds a doozy of her own: light healing therapy. It sounds like yet another version of “this method/machine will change something, magically, in your brain and make you better, no matter what the problem is” – supposedly rewiring your nervous system so that you can “experience your connection to the Divine”.

Sure, there’s ways to rewire synapses in the brain – but it takes a long time, and light isn’t going to be the agent that does it.

The final nail in the coffin?

The link at the bottom to the West Coast Reiki Centre. K is a member of that group, and according to her bio, “has studied extensively” with masters of theraputic touch, craniosacral therapy, the trager method, and is an inductee of “reiki I and II”.

That is a very large amount of total bullshit that has been debunked repeatedly, and a good reason to toss these flyers in the garbage wherever you see them.

EDIT: Is it just me, or do some of the comments seem like sock puppets?

Quote

1. Alexander | September 30, 2009 at 9:10 pm | Reply
‘Creates a new pattern to re-wire your central nervous system’… Although the poster claims to use some sort of magic and/or light bulb array to cause this, it really does sort of sound like they’re replacing who you are with a different, albeit more spiritual, person.

Has sort of a creepy brainwash-esque vibe to it. I think if I had any belief that it would work I’d be even more concerned about this than I already am.
On another note, it refers to ‘leadership’, a common advertising buzzword these days. It appeals to our pride, and our desire for power – you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t either think of themself as a leader, or else a leader waiting to blossom. I’m instantly skeptical of anything that uses that word, so maybe that’s just rubbing off a bit here.

2. Brian L (surname omitted by Corboy for privacy) | May 17, 2010 at 3:00 am | Reply
The comments to this post make me sad. It’s just a sequence of nonsense strung together.

A) The state of medicine in Ancient Greece was crap. Quoting Plato about medicine is complete nonsense, and is on par with quoting Aristotle to back up Quantum Mechanics: you would have to have a highly defective brain to do so.
And before anyone says anything stupid about ‘having to study Plato indepth before forming an opinion’: I have.

(Corboy: he is right. Earliest description of tetanus was by Hippocrates, describing a shipowner who crushed his finger with an anchor. The man died in agony. Nothing could be done for abscessed teeth or compound fractures, either.)

B) There is *nothing* that anyone can do in a workshop to ‘rewire your nervous system’ (short of whipping out a knife and going to work…). *Nothing*. To think otherwise is to be grotesquely ignorant of human biology. If you believe otherwise, then you are a danger to yourself and to anyone who relies upon you for medical advice.

C) True psychology is about *the brain*. The things that are about ‘the soul’ are called “fairy tales”, or pseudoscience crap designed to separate you from your money
.
D) Neither “new science” nor “New psychology” back up anything you’re saying, unless these are labels for ‘the stuff previously known as bullshit’.

E) There are no Christ teachings. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of the construction of the bible.

F) Paralleling ‘self-help’ crap with actual medical interventions is cheap and dirty. It’s like there’s no real science behind medicine at all, and it’s all a crap-shoot. This is just ridiculously ignorant.

G) Spezzano’s methods are bullshit, plain and simple. If you can’t see that, then there’s a proverb to the rescue: a fool and their money are soon parted.
Enjoy the delusion, hope it doesn’t cost you too much in the way of health, money and time. But it probably will.

o james m | November 20, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Reply
heres an interestin read ,type psychology of vision2011 trainers manual , some interestin stuff there
3. Lucas J.W. J | May 17, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Reply
Rob,
It’s hard to argue against people claiming personal experience. The worst thing you can do is pass it off as stupid responses or puppetry — I certainly don’t agree with them, but they do make a couple good points about issues you just pass off as wrong without giving the evidence.

I don’t recommend starting a huge argument, but maybe give them one response where you link to all the evidence you need. You have the benefit of science on your side, so use it, rather than resorting to the same unsubstantiated claims that they do.

Like commenter Brian, who specifically addresses some of the arguments. Find your evidence and use it, because that’s how science works — and science *works*. You won’t convince them by calling them puppets. But yours is an argument that needs making. :)

(Corboy, that means pausing to write the equivalent of a book, a large New Yorker feature article, or a master's thesis. During the lag time needed for
the in depth reply, myriads of ads can be placed by profiteers who care little for fact checking or for logical inconsistencies)
4. Brian L| May 17, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Reply
Lucas, I have the advantage of having specific arguments to respond to. Because Rob is dealing with the initial stuff, he doesn’t have arguments to respond to.

I’ve checked out the PoV website too, and it’s all just meaningless babble. There’s no specific claims, there’s nothing that can be compared to a modern psychological/neuroscientific understanding of the brain/mind on those sites.
That absence is what Rob is responding to.

The ‘sock puppets’ statement is a specific reference to an internet practice whereby one uses multiple accounts to present the same opinion but with the illusion of consensus. It’s not a reference to people being mindless zombies under the influence of the PoV people.

And I suspect, though I’m sure Rob will correct me, that Rob isn’t aiming to convince the morons that they’re wrong. If rational argument were a viable tool, then they wouldn’t be convinced of the many stupid things that I had to respond to.

o Brian May 21, 2010 at 9:38 pm | Reply
Again, your comment “And, as a result, people are both helped and harmed by science. The same is true of religion and self-help movements” is so broad it implies some sort of equality to science and nonsense.

Painting with such broad strokes is ludicrous. This is the Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy, a basic failure of reasoning.

Check the success of science and modern medicine: what is your life expectancy in modern society? What was the life expectancy of your great-great-grandparents?

What is the ‘harm’ that science has committed, in and of itself? What harms did science motivate (as opposed to being used as a tool by someone already motivated)?

Compare that to the success/failure of religion and self-help: zip.
Religion is nonsense and lies packaged in guilt and control. Self-help is the illegitimate step-child of psychology, a bunch of half-understood notions dumbed down and sold with no interest in actually *understanding* people.
Equating the former with the latter is either ignorance, or intentional obfuscation.

That we do not understand many things: that’s a given. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand *anything*.

The final paragraph is particularly telling: “I don’t know if people are benefitting from what Spezzano is teaching”.

Do you know how many people are benefiting from sugar pills as medicine? Zip. Zero. Nada.

Yet some people who take sugar pills get better. The same principle is at play with Spezzano: just because people ‘get better’ at the same time as they did something else does *not* mean that the ‘something else’ caused them to get better.

$1000 (Canadian) on the table by me says that Spezzano has not done any clinical trials, that he has not kept accurate figures of people who have and have not gotten better, nor has he done *any* comparative studies of how many people get better using his method vs any other method.
Why?

Because he doesn’t care. He’s making money from people who don’t know any better. Scum like him should be doing time for fraud, not being enabled.

§ Brian L| May 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm |
And that ‘zip’ there was just on the ‘successes’ of religion and self-help. I fired that off a smidge too fast. :P

5. Brian L | May 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Reply
“who is a hopeful person – (one of the benefits of having faith in God)”
This is a common misconception of religious people: ‘faith in god’ has nothing to do with being hopeful. People who are religious often attribute their hopefulness to their belief in god, but it’s in error.
It’s entirely possible to be hopeful *and* rational, as evidenced by many athiests (including myself).

“He also pays attention to experiential knowledge.”

Here’s where the semantic nonsense starts. Here’s where you start the pattern of playing with words in some attempt to do [something]. I don’t know what exactly your goal is, but using pseudo-acadamic phrases to dress up the reality of the situation is disingenuous, at best.

“He also pays attention to the experience of other people” is what you’re saying, which equates to “he also pays attention to anecdotes”.

“And yes, it has been studied and found to be helpful, but because it’s not a patentable treatment, the pharmacuetical industry understandably has no incentive to spend the money to step it through the approval process for the purpose of marketing it as a treatment.”
Wow.
Just… Wow
…
There is so much nonsense in that one paragraph: cite your sources.
A) go to a healthfood store (or any pharmacy). Check out all the vitamin supplements on the shelves. They are not patentable, yet “the pharmacuetical industry” (DUN Dun dun…) are still selling them. Those evil bastards. This is known as “conspiracy crap” to those who aren’t conspiracy nuts.

B) “As a treatment” it’s less effective than the other things on the market. I’m going to make the assumption that you’re not *merely* listening to other folk blather on about their personal stories (which demonstrate neither the effectiveness of ‘alternative treatments’ nor the failure of ‘science’). Have you bothered to go to pubmed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)? And do a search for all these things you claim aren’t being checked?

There are 219 hits for the search “atrial fibrillation magnesium” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=atrial+fibrillation+magnesium). A meta-analysis of the data shows that *intravenous* use of magnesium is “less significant than other calcium antagonists or amiodarone”

(http://heart.bmj.com/content/93/11/1433.long you’ll need some sort of university login to read anything more than the abstract).

Why does the ‘intravenous’ matter? Because taking it orally will have a *lesser* effect than taking it intravenously. And it’s *already* less effective than the stuff that’s already in use.

C) Any medical intervention can be patented. “The pharmacuetical industry” (DUN Dun dun…) would just throw something else into the mix with the magnesium and patent that particular combination, even if the addition was iron, or just sugar. Given that YOU WOULD BUY IT there’s clearly a market for uninformed people throwing away their money, thus it’s in their interest to ‘push it through the approval process’.

“And by the way, I’m not advocating here that anyone take magnesium to treat atrial fibrillation”

Oh.

So it doesn’t work?

Or it does, but you wouldn’t recommend this ‘working treatment’ to other people?

How does that work in your head? That’s a blatent contradiction.
“self-help”

You abuse this term a lot. This is known as the Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts. “Self-help” has a very specific meaning in the vernacular, reffering to a certain bookshelf in any particular bookstore. This is the nonsense that is complete bullshit, although it may inadvertently contain the occasional nugget of truth.

You have decided to redefine this term to mean “doing stuff myself”. I would agree that there is merit to ‘doing stuff yourself’, but not to ‘self-help’, because they don’t mean the same thing.

However, if you are serious about ‘doing stuff yourself’, that would require a medical degree. Or, at the least, listening to people with medical degrees.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve dealt with incompetent medical staff too. I’ve gone for blood tests (a screening for STIs) and they sent me to a lab to test for anything but STIs, or I’ve asked for screening for a particular genetic marker (I’m Irish so I’m at greater risk, genetically, for haemochromotosis than others), and they sent me to check my Iron levels (which tests if I’m suffering from it).

Yes: some medical staff are crap. I’d never dispute that.

But my source for knowledge about medical stuff isn’t ‘people I know’ (aside from the MD that I know). It’s actual *medical* literature.

Did I mention pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) already?

“that told her what language to use to push through”

This is so vague as to be meaningless. What are you talking about?

“a psychiatrist in the Chicago area”

Whose name was…? How do I verify this without the name?

This whole story sounds incredibly far-fetched, given how unregulated the medical industry was at this time. This particular era that you’re referring to was a heyday of snake oil and other garbage. Hell, there were naturopathic hospitals all over the US at this time.

If you are referring to Abraham Low (and I think that you are), then you’re mistaken about the effectiveness of this particular treatment:

[en.wikipedia.org] (use the wiki to check the references, don’t try to claim that I’m merely relying on the wiki: it’s *sources* are what’s important)
If you are referring to Abraham Low, then you’re also mistaken about him stopping teaching under threat from “the medical establishment” (DUN Dun dun…), because he never stopped. Yet more conspiracy crap.

“his self-help methods are now endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.”

Really? Who told you that? Have you *checked* that?

If I had a name to cross-reference, I could do a search on the APA’s website, and find out, but you haven’t provided me with those details. (Abraham Low doesn’t show up in a search on their page)

“Self-help has it’s problems too. I could give you examples of how self-help efforts have and can cause harm. But I’m willing to bet Brian that you also recognize that science has it’s problems and sometimes causes harm too.”

This would be where you, yet again, equate something that is predominately crap with something that is predominately useful and non-harmful.

Do you understand that they are not equivalent?
Do you understand that science is invested in *testing*?
Do you understand that “self-help” is not?
Do you understand that “asking your friends” doesn’t count as ‘testing’ or ‘investigating’?
Do you understand that there is a financial incentive for every new batch of science graduates (that’s *every* year) to test, attack and overturn the science of the past?
Do you understand that this means there is no monolithic “medical establishment” or “pharmaceutial industry” or “science”, and that to speak of them as such belies ignorance?
From your responses here, an honest answer from you would be “no” to all the above questions.

(Hint: wanting to change the wording here, given how basically simple I’ve made it, should be a big red-flag to you. Given that this *is* how things are, disagreeing with the phrasing means that your answer is ‘no’.

Now I get that that means you’re going to paint me as some idiot elitist, who has covered his ears and doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary because I’m ‘part of the conspiracy’: that should also be a red flag to you.

To pretend for a moment that I am ‘part of the conspiracy’, here’s how you demonstrate that I’m wrong (see the word ‘demonstrate’? It’s an important word. It doesn’t mean “just say that I’m wrong”, it means ‘to show’):

Demonstrate that science *isn’t* interested in testing.
Demonstrate that ‘self-help’ (either or both definitions) *is* interested in testing.

Understand that ‘testing’ doesn’t mean that “I used it and I got better” or “I know 10 people who used it and they all got better”.

‘Testing’ means a standardised randomly controlled double-blind test, or something similar. I’m open to a variety of standardised tests, but “my friend says it works” isn’t a test.

Demonstrate that there *isn’t* a financial incentive for new graduates to overturn established science.
Demonstrate that new grads *don’t attempt* to overturn established science.
Demonstrate that any of those industries are, world-wide, monolithic.
Those would be acceptable counters to my claims, and would indicate that you understand what I’m talking about. “You’re just wrong” would indicate that you don’t understand what I’m talking about. Clear? )

“If it works, I use it, if it doesn’t, I don’t.”

Yuh huh.

And what do you mean by “it works”? Given that religion doesn’t ‘work’ for any meaningful definition of ‘works’, I don’t think that you know what you’re talking about.

“If science did not provide you all the answers you needed to maintain a good quality of life”

That is a vague and wooly sentence. Science doesn’t tell me who loves me, or who I love, nor does it help me find a partner. Science doesn’t tell me what TV shows I enjoy, nor what kind of foods I prefer. These all feed into ‘a good quality of life’.

Science has reduced my risk of polio and a large variety of diseases to zero. A question from my previous post which you deigned not to answer (of course) is that my life expectency is roughly triple that of my ancestors living in the early/mid 1800s.

People get sick. It happens. It sucks. Bitching about ‘science’ not being able to provide you a good quality of life while your body falls apart is just nonsense. It is simply not possible to maintain a good quality of life in all circumstances, and to demand otherwise is childish and unrealistic.

This is not to say that science should not keep looking into ways to improve things, but there will always be people who are beyond the help of current science. Because of the continuing evolution of illnesses, and the continued extension of our lives, there will always be new ways for us to die and fall apart. Science, having pushed us clear of the old ways, will always be behind the curve of the new.

To make your question more specific: if I find myself in the thrall of a new, otherwise undiscovered illness, that completely screws up my quality of life, will I wait for science to find the answer?

Yes. Because nothing else works, it’s the only option on the table.

o Joseph | June 29, 2014 at 4:51 am | Reply
I think wanting to be right is your ego getting in the way. Truth cannot be taught . It is known or unknown. I can understand that which I wish to understand by my own curiosity ,effort and research. You can talk till you turn blue and to who’s benefit?Ours or your ? Peace

6. J S| September 9, 2010 at 11:44 am | Reply
I have read these comments with great interest. It seems to me that this is a clash of ways of thinking about proof. There is an inner conviction someone can feel based on individual experience — a prayer that resulted in an answer, a healing — but these experiences are individual and subjective. On the other hand there is science — science is a language that people can communicate in no matter what their religion or culture is. That is so great about science. I am a scientist. Science provides us with methods that we can use to test assumptions.

If a new (age?) method of healing appears on the horizon, science provides us with the means to rise above our own individual subjective experiences. It allows us to test the assumptions, to compare effects of treatments (including placebo groups, of course), based on a scientific theory with other testable assumptions.

And no — ‘Go and see for yourself’ is not a scientific method.
So far, I have not found any link between this Psychology of Vision method(s) and the body of knowledge science accumulated. POV seems to be separate from scientific theory or method. ‘It works’ is by no means a viable proof, since individual experiences would have to be collected and evaluated to be considered evidence.

Scientists ask for proof of the kind that is not subjective – data that we can evaluate according to the standards that our colleagues all over the world agree on, without immersing ourselves in the thing that has to be looked at with detachment and a free mind.

o Brian L | October 18, 2012 at 1:06 am | Reply
“The PoVers sound like peaceful and harmonious human beings, whereas the critics sound aggressive and unhappy. I know which ones I’d rather hang out with….”

This is tone trolling.

I am unhappy that people are being scammed out of money, and that lives are being damaged by hucksters and people selling bullshit as therapy. I will aggressively push back against fraud and lies.
I am *such* an asshole. How dare I give a crap about the people who are being scammed. I should *really* just play nice with the scammers, and not raise my voice against my betters.
For fuck’s sake…
14. Rob Teszka | October 18, 2012 at 10:42 am | Reply
OP here
I should mention that I’ve posted two followups to this post: one where I talk to the Spezzano’s publisher [robteszka.wordpress.com] and one where I wrap up my thoughts on the matter [robteszka.wordpress.com] .
I’m glad that people are still finding this post three years on and find it a useful or interesting resource, but I’m less than enthused that these workshops still appear to be operating and charging $475 bucks for a 3-day conference.
15. moreinfo | October 16, 2013 at 12:41 am | Reply
other peoples comments on the group – Psychology Of Vision.
[groups.yahoo.com]
Sunday, October 13, 2013
This is about Behavior, not Belief
Ultimately, criticism of Psychology of Vision and related businesses is not about their beliefs.
They can believe what they want to, as long as their beliefs do not cause harm to themselves or others.
That said, along the way as we research and critique POV, their beliefs are also going to be held up to scrutiny. Because as POV followers become more and more indoctrinated, their lives suffer.
So what’s our issues with their behavior?
Chuck and Lency Spezzano, along with their trainers, claim they are practicing a form of psychology. Yet they are not licensed to practice. They have no supervisor or oversight. They conduct unethical, traumatizing seminars and sessions using hypnosis and other manipulation techniques.
Chuck and Lency Spezzano charge quite a bit of money for these seminars and sessions. Recruitment is heavy, the pressure is intense to take more seminars, ascend higher on their ladder, spend more money, devote more time.
The system Chuck and Lency Spezzano has created never ends. Followers are never “done”, never able to rest, never able to stop spending money.
Chuck and Lency are absolute authorities in their kingdom, there is no accountability. They are top dogs.
Questions are not answered, instead those that question are told that they just need to do more group practices.
Chuck and Lency’s business Spezzano and Associates Ltd. is a for profit business. There is no financial disclosure, there are no public annual reports. Quite a bit of money is taken in, including some supposedly earmarked for charities, the public is not told where it all goes.
Unreasonable fear and paranoia about the outside world is encouraged by the Spezzanos. Chuck gives daily messages to his followers, many of these include predictions of darkness and danger.
Former followers are shunned and harassed.
In 2001 a news article included POV in its criticism of oppressive New Age therapies that prey on First Nations peoples. Stories from survivors are available online, as is ongoing critical review of Spezzano activities, along with research and discussion.
Followers are never “good enough” according to this group. There are always more practices to do, more money to spend. There is a high level of negative judgement used by the hierarchy. Even when a follower thinks they might be doing something correctly, they will be told they are mistaken, and that they need to try harder.
Chuck and Lency Spezzano are always right. Reading through glowing testimony from their followers, it is clear that they worship Chuck and Lency. Chuck encourages this worship.
The Spezzanos, and their trainers, claim the “exclusive means of knowing ‘truth’ or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.”. Followers turn to them for all answers.
I used these warning signs of a potentially unsafe group as a framework for this post.
Lency could believe that she downloads healings from heaven through her actual brain to the brain of another person all she wants. As long as she doesn’t charge incredible sums of money in the process, hypnotise and mess people over emotionally, and behave like a con artist grifter pretending to be a god.
[dougbottorff.com]
[brilyn.net]
European research by Psiram”s view of chuck/lency spezzano” psychology of vision..
[www.psiram.com]
hopefully this will help people to make better choices whether they’re considering joining or they’re being in the recruitment process by a pov devotee
16. moreinfo | October 16, 2013 at 2:21 am | Reply
sites with researched archival postings from POV sites and comments about chuck/lency spezzano’s group the…
Psychology Of Vision..
[griftershotel.blogspot.ca]
[www.newagefraud.org]
and a facebook site..
[www.facebook.com]

Quote

Critics of the skeptics

35 responses to “Bad Ads: Psychology of Vision and Light Healing Therapy”
1. Pingback: A Conversation re: POV « Vancouver Mind Factory

2. angel | March 2, 2010 at 6:55 pm | Reply

Hey Rob, I agree, that brochure does sound like a very bad ad. Even a psychology of vision student like myself think so too! haahahahaah
Well, I guess when you have really met Chuck and Lency and really attended their workshop and really understand their psychology of vision model, you will have a sense of why the brochure seems a little bit like a bad ad.. hahahahaa..

I dun think it is possible to know them and the POV model through a few mere words:) And if I tried to put down what i know about Chuck and Lency Spezzano and POV model in a one page brochure, I guess even a writer like me would at best be able to come up with a ‘ bad ad’…

Psychologists usually like to get to the root of things.. in that case, my suggestion is that you do attend one of their workshops and then you can make a fairer comment about whether all the talk about creating a better nervous system and leadership are BS:)

In my experience of POV, Chuck and Lency are very precious friends and teachers who have really made huge changes and impacts to my life and psychology. I am a much happier human being and a much better parent and daughter because of them:) Unlike cults, POV is empowering to an individual I find that in understanding the model, I get a better understanding of my life and why the challenges occur and how to solve them.. (See, I tried but still end up sounding like the brochure.. hahaha)

I can’t comment on the Light Healing Therapy part cos POV workshops that I attended does not involve that.
Love

Angel
3. Kendra | March 18, 2010 at 10:34 pm | Reply
I agree with Angel. I have healed layers of pain in my life due to very loving friends and workshops from Psychology of Vision. It is a path of spirituality that has put me on my own spiritual path of living in the present and owning my patterns and choices…. like all other forms of healing it is not for everyone! But I have seen hundreds benefit and have met many beautiful people over the past 11 years! May you find peace and love in the world! Love, Kendra

4. M O-C | April 21, 2010 at 8:33 am | Reply
One who is intelligent only judges when one has rigorous knowledge and information. Of course you would know Chuck and Lency and you would have read their work and attended their workshops to voice such an opinion.

Your anger at the many snake oil dealers in the name of Truth is misdirected however in this case so your generalized anger should only be general, not targeted at people you know nothing about. I know Chuck and Lency, and have for 15 years, worked with them, and I have nothing but good things to say about them. They are not cheap, neither are cardio surgeons nor race car drivers and their workshops are good value and not all are expensive either. They often offer courses in modest retreats for moderate prices. One of their foundational references is the (real) Course in Miracles. They are not cultish at all.
Respectfully,
Mary

5. Eliakim | May 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm | Reply
True psychology is about the study of the soul not statistics and Carl Jung knew this very well. Hence why he invested so much of his time studying consciousness. Even Plato knew the truth.

“The cure of the part should not be attempted without treatment of the whole. No attempt should be made to cure the body without the soul. Let no one persuade you to cure the head until he has first given you his soul to be cured, for this is the great error of our day, that physicians first separate the soul from the body.” Plato

New Science and New Biology backs up and supports healing psychology and its many methods that can also be found in the Christ and Buddha teachings.
Rob, experience really counts. Reiki is used in orthodox medicine in many facilities, do you honestly think that doctors and nurses would train it if didn’t work?

Become a healer Rob then you know from the benefit of your experience of that which is real.

6. grandma lise | May 16, 2010 at 11:47 am | Reply
I learned about Psychology of Vision (POV) this morning as I was searching for children’s books illustrated by Alison Jay.

She illustrated a book and deck of cards by Chuck Spezzano’s in 1996 titled The Enlightenment Pack: Identify Your Personal Goals, Improve Your Life, Your Work, Your Relationships. Out of print, it now sells for more than $100. I began collecting these types of cards recently, and find them both interesting and helpful, but typically find them in the $2 – $3 range in thrift stores.
Due to the cost of the cards, I decided to learn more about Spezzano’s background and teachings by broadening my search on the in the internet, in the hopes of finding critiques, not just testimonials.

I read your critique but found it greatly lacking because your comments were limited to your brief review of Spezzano’s website. And you used the “C” word, “cultish”, without substantiating your opinion.

As an advocate on behalf of adults with disbilities, I’ve spent a lot of time learning about best treatments and practices that have been validated by scientific study. I have been both helped and harmed by these treatments. The same can be said for most self-help methods.

I have no opinion on Chuck Spezzano’s work, but am encouraged to investigate further after visiting his two websites, watching one of his videos, and reading comments left in response to your post on this blog.

I agree with those who commented here that you really need to take the additional step of learning about Spezzano’s self-help methods before you critique them.

I also am put off by your labeling of those who do not agree with your poor critique as “puppets”. I could say the same thing about you. Based on my personal experiences, I can honestly say that medical and psychological treatments continue to this day to be more art than science.

o L J.W. J | May 17, 2010 at 11:48 pm | Reply
Brian — Fair enough, on all points (especially the last one). There could, perhaps, have been more links to articles that specifically support Rob’s claims (the “very large amount of total bullshit that has been debunked repeatedly”, “the actual psychology of vision”, etc) to preempt potential counterarguments (and to give a fuller explanatory picture to psychology plebs like me). Rob’s a smart enough guy, I feel I can push him to do even better.

7. grandma lise | May 21, 2010 at 9:15 pm | Reply
I regret my statement “medical and psychological treatments continue to this day to be more art than science.”

What I should have said is that with all the knowledge we have today, there is still so much that we do not understand. And, as a result, people are both helped and harmed by science. The same is true of religion and self-help movements.

I don’t know if people are benefitting from what Spezzano is teaching, nor do those of you who have not taken the time to familiarize yourself with what he is teaching. I received The Enlightenment Pack, a book and deck of cards that Spezzano wrote in the mid-90?s, and am going to take the time to begin reviewing it this weekend.

o Brian L | May 21, 2010 at 9:38 pm | Reply
Again, your comment “And, as a result, people are both helped and harmed by science. The same is true of religion and self-help movements” is so broad it implies some sort of equality to science and nonsense.
Painting with such broad strokes is ludicrous. This is the Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy, a basic failure of reasoning.

Check the success of science and modern medicine: what is your life expectancy in modern society? What was the life expectancy of your great-great-grandparents?

What is the ‘harm’ that science has committed, in and of itself? What harms did science motivate (as opposed to being used as a tool by someone already motivated)?

Compare that to the success/failure of religion and self-help: zip.
Religion is nonsense and lies packaged in guilt and control. Self-help is the illegitimate step-child of psychology, a bunch of half-understood notions dumbed down and sold with no interest in actually *understanding* people.
Equating the former with the latter is either ignorance, or intentional obfuscation.

That we do not understand many things: that’s a given. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand *anything*.

The final paragraph is particularly telling: “I don’t know if people are benefitting from what Spezzano is teaching”.

Do you know how many people are benefiting from sugar pills as medicine? Zip. Zero. Nada.

Yet some people who take sugar pills get better. The same principle is at play with Spezzano: just because people ‘get better’ at the same time as they did something else does *not* mean that the ‘something else’ caused them to get better.

$1000 (Canadian) on the table by me says that Spezzano has not done any clinical trials, that he has not kept accurate figures of people who have and have not gotten better, nor has he done *any* comparative studies of how many people get better using his method vs any other method.
Why?

Because he doesn’t care. He’s making money from people who don’t know any better. Scum like him should be doing time for fraud, not being enabled.

§ Brian L | May 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm |
And that ‘zip’ there was just on the ‘successes’ of religion and self-help. I fired that off a smidge too fast. :P

8. grandma lise | May 22, 2010 at 11:50 am | Reply
Brian, it’s not my intention to defend Spezzano specifically, because, I, like you, am not yet familiar with the concepts he is teaching or if they have value. Yes, we have all benefitted greatly from science, but religion and self-help have their place too in serving the greater good.

(Corboy: then wny go to all the length describing the cards?)

For me, the typical consumer, and many others, I am primarily concerned with the benefits of science, religion, and self-help. But in my mind, they are only useful if they are accessible and properly utililized.

Many years ago, my husband was diagnosised with a condition called atrial fibrillation. It’s an intermittent condition, but during an episode which can last for weeks, it’s hard for him to do many of this daily tasks, and a blood clot can form and cause a stroke or pulmonary embolism. As a result, he has to take medications that can stop his heart or cause him to bleed out.

For this reason, one of his medications can only be initiated in a hospital setting where he is both monitored and has immediate access to a crash cart, and he has to take the medication every 12 hours at the prescribed doseage, which is doeable but an ongoing challenge.

The other medication he takes “thins his blood” and has it’s problems too because what he eats and drinks also affects how well his blood clots if he accidentially injures himself, and it’s just not reasonably possible to have blood work done every day to adjust the dosage.

My husband, who is a hopeful person – (one of the benefits of having faith in God) – has believed from the time he was diagnosed that there is probably a nutritional approach to reducing or eliminating his episodes of atrial fibrilation. In the meantime, he continues to actively partner with his cardiologist by keeping up with the research, asking questions, and complying with his treatment.

But he does not limit himself only to the benefits of scientific study. He also pays attention to experiential knowledge.

He networks with others who have an interest in atrial fibrillation, primarily on the internet and by phone, in search of a more effective treatment.
He found one – (one of the benefits of self-help). It’s magnesium. And yes, it has been studied and found to be helpful, but because it’s not a patentable treatment, the pharmacuetical industry understandably has no incentive to spend the money to step it through the approval process for the purpose of marketing it as a treatment.

And by the way, I’m not advocating here that anyone take magnesium to treat atrial fibrillation. My husband has gone through a huge learning curve to determine how, when, and with what other nutrients he has to take it to minimize risks and side effects and to maximize benefits.

Here’s a second example. When my boss was diagnosed with cancer, and it became clear that some of the clinic staff who were providing her chemotherapy were incompetent, I immediately got on the phone, began contacting other cancer patients, and within one hour identified a cancer center 30 miles to the south of us that provided her excellent, science-based care. Oh, and as a side note, you might have asked, how did she know she was receiving incompetent care? Because she had already read a lot of books – (another form of self-help) – on cancer treatments and the experiences of cancer patients.

Later, when the side-effects from the chemotherapy became so severe she felt she had no choice but to discontinue her treatment, it was a fellow cancer patient that she’d connected with through a self-help forum on the internet, not a health-care professional, that told her what language to use to push through. It worked. Again, another benefit of self-help.

Here’s an example that relates even more closely to our discussion.

In the 1930?s, a psychiatrist in the Chicago area rejected many of Freud’s theories and developed a self-help method, similar to what we refer to today as cognitive behavioral therapy, to help his institutionalized patients who had one or more mental illnesses.

The self-help methods he taught to his hospitalized patients were so helpful, many of his patients were able to return home and begin to resume their lives. In an effort to support their ongoing recovery, he continued to teach them his self-help methods on an out-patient basis.

Word of his success began to spread.

(CorboyJust the same word of mouth used by POV and other such outfits today.)

People who were not his patients began to learn and ultilize his self-help methods. They benefitted.

Then patients began moving from other areas of the country to the Chicago area to learn and utilitize his self-help methods. They too benefitted.

At that point, the medical association told him that if he continued to teach his self-help methods they would take away his license to practice medicine.
As a husband and father of two daughters, he felt he had no choice but to stop teaching his self-help methods.

But by that time, his self-help methods had been so well documented, his patients formed a non-profit organization to continue teaching his self-help methods. Those who had moved to the Chicago area from other areas of the country returned home and began teaching the self-help methods in their communities.

His self-help methods, more than 70 years later, continue to be taught in peer-to-peer group settings today around the world through Recovery International, and his self-help methods are now endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.

Cost? Purchase of a $20 book and participation in a weekly group, locally or by phone, for a small donation, which probably averages $3.

A donation is not required, nor is formal membership in the local group or the international organization.

Self-help has it’s problems too. I could give you examples of how self-help efforts have and can cause harm. But I’m willing to bet Brian that you also recognize that science has it’s problems and sometimes causes harm too.
As a person who struggles daily with the challenges of having disabilities and chronic medical conditions, I embrace the best of science, religion, and self-help. If it works, I use it, if it doesn’t, I don’t.

If science did not provide you all the answers you needed to maintain a good quality of life, would you say, “Well, I’ll just have to wait until science comes up with the answers”, or would you take a risk and look elsewhere too?

9. Brian L | May 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Reply
“who is a hopeful person – (one of the benefits of having faith in God)”
This is a common misconception of religious people: ‘faith in god’ has nothing to do with being hopeful. People who are religious often attribute their hopefulness to their belief in god, but it’s in error.

It’s entirely possible to be hopeful *and* rational, as evidenced by many athiests (including myself).

“He also pays attention to experiential knowledge.”

Here’s where the semantic nonsense starts. Here’s where you start the pattern of playing with words in some attempt to do [something]. I don’t know what exactly your goal is, but using pseudo-acadamic phrases to dress up the reality of the situation is disingenuous, at best.

“He also pays attention to the experience of other people” is what you’re saying, which equates to “he also pays attention to anecdotes”.
“And yes, it has been studied and found to be helpful, but because it’s not a patentable treatment, the pharmacuetical industry understandably has no incentive to spend the money to step it through the approval process for the purpose of marketing it as a treatment.”

Wow.
Just… Wow…

There is so much nonsense in that one paragraph: cite your sources.
A) go to a healthfood store (or any pharmacy). Check out all the vitamin supplements on the shelves. They are not patentable, yet “the pharmacuetical industry” (DUN Dun dun…) are still selling them. Those evil bastards. This is known as “conspiracy crap” to those who aren’t conspiracy nuts.
B) “As a treatment” it’s less effective than the other things on the market. I’m going to make the assumption that you’re not *merely* listening to other folk blather on about their personal stories (which demonstrate neither the effectiveness of ‘alternative treatments’ nor the failure of ‘science’). Have you bothered to go to pubmed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)? And do a search for all these things you claim aren’t being checked?
There are 219 hits for the search “atrial fibrillation magnesium” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=atrial+fibrillation+magnesium). A meta-analysis of the data shows that *intravenous* use of magnesium is “less significant than other calcium antagonists or amiodarone” (http://heart.bmj.com/content/93/11/1433.long you’ll need some sort of university login to read anything more than the abstract).
Why does the ‘intravenous’ matter? Because taking it orally will have a *lesser* effect than taking it intravenously. And it’s *already* less effective than the stuff that’s already in use.
C) Any medical intervention can be patented. “The pharmacuetical industry” (DUN Dun dun…) would just throw something else into the mix with the magnesium and patent that particular combination, even if the addition was iron, or just sugar. Given that YOU WOULD BUY IT there’s clearly a market for uninformed people throwing away their money, thus it’s in their interest to ‘push it through the approval process’.
“And by the way, I’m not advocating here that anyone take magnesium to treat atrial fibrillation”
Oh.
So it doesn’t work?
Or it does, but you wouldn’t recommend this ‘working treatment’ to other people?
How does that work in your head? That’s a blatent contradiction.
“self-help”
You abuse this term a lot. This is known as the Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts. “Self-help” has a very specific meaning in the vernacular, reffering to a certain bookshelf in any particular bookstore. This is the nonsense that is complete bullshit, although it may inadvertently contain the occasional nugget of truth.
You have decided to redefine this term to mean “doing stuff myself”. I would agree that there is merit to ‘doing stuff yourself’, but not to ‘self-help’, because they don’t mean the same thing.
However, if you are serious about ‘doing stuff yourself’, that would require a medical degree. Or, at the least, listening to people with medical degrees.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve dealt with incompetent medical staff too. I’ve gone for blood tests (a screening for STIs) and they sent me to a lab to test for anything but STIs, or I’ve asked for screening for a particular genetic marker (I’m Irish so I’m at greater risk, genetically, for haemochromotosis than others), and they sent me to check my Iron levels (which tests if I’m suffering from it).
Yes: some medical staff are crap. I’d never dispute that.
But my source for knowledge about medical stuff isn’t ‘people I know’ (aside from the MD that I know). It’s actual *medical* literature. Did I mention pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) already?
“that told her what language to use to push through”
This is so vague as to be meaningless. What are you talking about?
“a psychiatrist in the Chicago area”
Whose name was…? How do I verify this without the name?
This whole story sounds incredibly far-fetched, given how unregulated the medical industry was at this time. This particular era that you’re referring to was a heyday of snake oil and other garbage. Hell, there were naturopathic hospitals all over the US at this time.
If you are referring to Abraham Low (and I think that you are), then you’re mistaken about the effectiveness of this particular treatment:
[en.wikipedia.org] (use the wiki to check the references, don’t try to claim that I’m merely relying on the wiki: it’s *sources* are what’s important)
If you are referring to Abraham Low, then you’re also mistaken about him stopping teaching under threat from “the medical establishment” (DUN Dun dun…), because he never stopped. Yet more conspiracy crap.
“his self-help methods are now endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association.”
Really? Who told you that? Have you *checked* that?
If I had a name to cross-reference, I could do a search on the APA’s website, and find out, but you haven’t provided me with those details. (Abraham Low doesn’t show up in a search on their page)
“Self-help has it’s problems too. I could give you examples of how self-help efforts have and can cause harm. But I’m willing to bet Brian that you also recognize that science has it’s problems and sometimes causes harm too.”
This would be where you, yet again, equate something that is predominately crap with something that is predominately useful and non-harmful.
Do you understand that they are not equivalent?
Do you understand that science is invested in *testing*?
Do you understand that “self-help” is not?
Do you understand that “asking your friends” doesn’t count as ‘testing’ or ‘investigating’?
Do you understand that there is a financial incentive for every new batch of science graduates (that’s *every* year) to test, attack and overturn the science of the past?
Do you understand that this means there is no monolithic “medical establishment” or “pharmaceutial industry” or “science”, and that to speak of them as such belies ignorance?
From your responses here, an honest answer from you would be “no” to all the above questions.
(Hint: wanting to change the wording here, given how basically simple I’ve made it, should be a big red-flag to you. Given that this *is* how things are, disagreeing with the phrasing means that your answer is ‘no’.
Now I get that that means you’re going to paint me as some idiot elitist, who has covered his ears and doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary because I’m ‘part of the conspiracy’: that should also be a red flag to you.
To pretend for a moment that I am ‘part of the conspiracy’, here’s how you demonstrate that I’m wrong (see the word ‘demonstrate’? It’s an important word. It doesn’t mean “just say that I’m wrong”, it means ‘to show’):
Demonstrate that science *isn’t* interested in testing.
Demonstrate that ‘self-help’ (either or both definitions) *is* interested in testing.
Understand that ‘testing’ doesn’t mean that “I used it and I got better” or “I know 10 people who used it and they all got better”. ‘Testing’ means a standardised randomly controlled double-blind test, or something similar. I’m open to a variety of standardised tests, but “my friend says it works” isn’t a test.
Demonstrate that there *isn’t* a financial incentive for new graduates to overturn established science.
Demonstrate that new grads *don’t attempt* to overturn established science.
Demonstrate that any of those industries are, world-wide, monolithic.

Those would be acceptable counters to my claims, and would indicate that you understand what I’m talking about. “You’re just wrong” would indicate that you don’t understand what I’m talking about. Clear? )
“If it works, I use it, if it doesn’t, I don’t.”

Yuh huh.

And what do you mean by “it works”? Given that religion doesn’t ‘work’ for any meaningful definition of ‘works’, I don’t think that you know what you’re talking about.

“If science did not provide you all the answers you needed to maintain a good quality of life”

That is a vague and wooly sentence. Science doesn’t tell me who loves me, or who I love, nor does it help me find a partner. Science doesn’t tell me what TV shows I enjoy, nor what kind of foods I prefer. These all feed into ‘a good quality of life’.

Science has reduced my risk of polio and a large variety of diseases to zero. A question from my previous post which you deigned not to answer (of course) is that my life expectency is roughly triple that of my ancestors living in the early/mid 1800s.

People get sick. It happens. It sucks. Bitching about ‘science’ not being able to provide you a good quality of life while your body falls apart is just nonsense. It is simply not possible to maintain a good quality of life in all circumstances, and to demand otherwise is childish and unrealistic.

This is not to say that science should not keep looking into ways to improve things, but there will always be people who are beyond the help of current science. Because of the continuing evolution of illnesses, and the continued extension of our lives, there will always be new ways for us to die and fall apart. Science, having pushed us clear of the old ways, will always be behind the curve of the new.

To make your question more specific: if I find myself in the thrall of a new, otherwise undiscovered illness, that completely screws up my quality of life, will I wait for science to find the answer?

Yes. Because nothing else works, it’s the only option on the table.

o Joseph | June 29, 2014 at 4:51 am | Reply
I think wanting to be right is your ego getting in the way. Truth cannot be taught . It is known or unknown. I can understand that which I wish to understand by my own curiosity ,effort and research. You can talk till you turn blue and to who’s benefit?Ours or your ? Peace
10. Pingback: POV Redux « Vancouver Mind Factory

11. grandma lise | May 22, 2010 at 5:57 pm | Reply
Yes, I was referring to Abraham Low, M.D. He created the self-help methods used to improve mental health through community based groups throughout the world.

I’m hesitant to encourage individuals who have atrial fibrillation to self-treat with magnesium because I’m not a doctor, nor is my husband, and I don’t know of any doctors who are treating their patients with magnesium so I wouldn’t know who to refer them to. And yes, so far, my husband is being helped by taking magnesium orally as he continues to utilitize all treatments that his cardiologist has suggested. I have not read the studies. My husband has read some of them.

I guess my question to you is, why do you think doctors aren’t treating patients who have atrial fibrillation with magnesium? If it’s been researched and it’s effective, why not? If you know of a doctor who is using magnesium on a regular basis to treat patients with atrial fibrillation, I’d appreciate having that doctor’s name and the city he or she practices in.

Health-related, self-help groups take many forms. The ones I work with the most provide information – (based on the most up-to-date research) – support, referrals (to medical and other healthcare providers), education (in the form of lectures, workshops, and conferences by presenters who are typically healthcare providers or researchers) and sometimes advocacy, if needed, in a peer-to-peer setting. In my opinion, self-help groups play an important role in patient education.

Brian, my sense about you is that if I took the time to answer all of your questions, not only would you not be satisfied, you’d just move onto hitting me with twenty more questions.

Quote

For Chuck and Lency and the POV office staff:

Holding us firmly in your heart
We get a chance to enjoy another new start
Treating us with both kindness and compassion
Allowing us to experience our own true passion
Hugging us in a way that melts our hearts
Bringing joy to our faces which will never part
Working behind the scenes setting the foundation
Uniting all brothers and sisters, races, cultures, countries and nations,
I don’t know if these words can truly express
The depths of love’s feeling flowing to you in excess
I look in your eyes and feel God’s beauty
Way beyond and transcending any role, rule or duty
Feeding us to fullness on every level
Helping us to eradicate every demon and devil
Working tirelessly to get us all here to this spot
Where we can each go inside and untie every knot
We wholeheartedly thank you over and over again
Helping us all to heal every problem, hurt, wound and/or pain
You are part of God’s Foundation that feed our souls
Helping to reach Oneness as our only goal
You help raise our Spirit’s in delightful ways
You truly are the Brilliance of God’s Great Rays
Thank you once more for being our friends
As we heal to wholeness by making amends
Greeting us all with your whole being open wide
We feel you love rumbling deep, deep inside
Thank you for Blessing us with Your Divine Presence
For you truly are molded from God’s Divine Essence
Thank you for being miracle-minded, miracle workers
Helping each of us to be Love Berserkers
Your peaceful ways bring love to the earth
We feel it so fully, it energizes our worth
Thank you for the joy of your smiling faces.
Transporting us all to Heavenly Places
Thank you for living your song from within
Helping us to abolish all pain, fear, hurt, guilt and sin
Please forgive us if we don’t always show or say it
Yet please believe me when I say we always feel and know it
May your lives be filled with abundant Grace
For you are helping enlighten the whole human race!

God Bless You! God Bless You! God Bless You!
With Love

Quote

Thought for the day
We resist only what we believe about ourselves.
~Chuck Spezzano

Quote

Laura Duthiel describes her therapy sessions with Psychology of Vision, an unlicensed service operating on the British Columbia island of Haida Gwaii under the direction of Lency and Chuck Spezzano, as a horrible experience. She says she witnessed people crying and throwing up, and that

Your personal boundaries, they are breaking that down... Like an addiction, you gotta go. And just never ending, you almost got dependent on it. You begin to realize you don’t have any other friends, just the friends that were in that group. You leave your family behind to go be with this other family.


Spezzano calls one of his healing methods an “original mind download” and a “blessing” that “provides some wholeness. Where there was a split mind or conflict or something like that, it brings peace.” The Spezzanos say they are a great help to the Haida people of Haida Gwaii, and add that wherever POV goes there is a cultural renaissance in the community. (APTN National News, 11/9/13)