Quote
jj52
However, she does repeat this phrase like a mantra to trance-induced people: "If The Work were the only way to God, would you take it?"

That is what they call Presupposition in NLP, and also hypnosis.
It also has the illusion of CHOICE, its a Forced-Choice.

Presuppositions: If its the ONLY way to God..that presupposes God exists, and that The Work exists and works.

Forced-Choice: And if its the ONLY way to God, then there is NO choice. You HAVE to take it.

Byron Katie wrote that MANTRA out extremely carefully.
When the BK people are saying its VOLUNTARY, that is from Katie.

That is the trick...its not Voluntary, its a Forced-Choice Mantra, Forced-Voluntary, which she expertly designed. That is rightout of the NLP hypnosis scene.

(I hope some Katie people read some of this stuff, and realize what she has done to them. Time to wake up folks. Most of you folks don't want to do this stuff to people, it ain't right, and you know it on some level).

Forced-Choice.
[www.google.com]

Its also related to the The Hypnotic Double Bind. (sounds like Byron Katie does lots of these)
[www.nlpweekly.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2008 02:34PM by The Anticult.

She clearly thinks she can fabricate anything she wants.
If Byron Katie wanted to PROVE her claim, she could go get an MRI or CT scan of her brain, while she is being Triggered for that, and watch the reaction. She will never do that, of course.

That is beyond evil, about the PTSD. Some of us happen to know a bit about PTSD, and Katie is preaching a dangerous, even deadly doctrine. That one might bring her down, if she keeps at it with the PTSD, but it will bring many others down first.

But what if she is just trolling for the people with the most serious problems, as they have the most PAIN, and thus are the most desperate, and will to drop $20,000 the quickest?
That's what I think, she and her husband are very clever.

Same as the scammers who sell coral-calcium ot whatever to "cure cancer".
Desperate people in serious PAIN don't have time to think, they just buy it.

Quote
jj52
Byron Katie makes it clear in her new book that she believes that there's no such thing as the "fight-or-flight" response. She says it's just all about thoughts. What the heck does she know about this? She says she's not experienced fear in years. To her, PTSD is just about thoughts... I mean, how can she believe PTSD is even real, if she thinks fight-or-flight in just in people's heads? How in the world can she treat something she doesn't even believe exists?
.....
At the School, BK said, "The Work has been found to be the ONLY thing that works for trauma." I had some SERIOUS doubts about that at the time. How could it work for trauma, when it doesn't even acknowledge the reality of the fight-or-flight response? Cuckoo.

The PTSD thing really bothers me, too. The idea of her in veterans hospitals makes me angry.

There's a video online... it's been mentioned here before... where Byron Katie is doing The Work with a woman who survived a terrorist's bomb. She obviously has some post traumatic stress... but BK keeps pushing her and insisting that the physical reaction she is having is just about her thoughts. When she still feels the post traumatic stress, BK basically tells her to keep questioning her thoughts and... the supposedly the woman just doesn't get it. You can view the video here.

[www.youtube.com]

I think it's pretty obvious in this video that BK has missed the mark.

But, look how trusting this woman is anyway.

-jj

I cannot find a single peer-reviewed controlled scientific study, or research from an independent university, evaluating the efficacy of "The Work" by Byron Katie and PTSD.
Zero.
Only testimonials, which are completely useless.

Byron Katie's company needs to produce those studies immediately, if they are going to make those claims.
Carol L. Skolnick should get those studies, so the public can look at them. That's a good question for Carol, where are the studies for The Work and PTSD?

Since there are no studies, Veteran Affairs can be contacted by concerned citizens or mental health professionals. Byron Katie and her people should not be allowed to do "experiments" on people with PTSD. PTSD is no joke, it kills people, and needs to be treated by trained mental health professionals who are certified.

There are ZERO hits for Byron Katie on the Veterans PTSD website, and the massive Veterans website. Why is that? Is that a fabricated story too? Where is the proof? How can there be ZERO info about her there?

Nothing about Byron Katie on the massive Veteran PTSD website. www.ncptsd.va.gov
[www.google.com]

Nothing on the massive Veterans site. www.index.va.gov
[www.google.com]


[www.ncptsd.va.gov]
The National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD) aims to advance the clinical care and social welfare of U.S. Veterans through research, education and training on PTSD and stress-related disorders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2008 03:32PM by The Anticult.

I think this is very serious. For example, this doc came up from a on-site search for Byron Katie, dated February 20, 2008

Index of Chaplains.
[www1.va.gov]

Maybe she is in the Chaplain Index, as she does preach a type of religion?
Nope, the sir name Byron was in there, but not her name.

How can she do work with Veterans, and have no registration whatsoever anywhere?
What's the story?

Nothing even comes up on Google, except her own PR. Is this story about treating war veterans for PTSD even true, or just fabricated?

[www.google.com]

Regarding presuppositions:

This is from an article posted yesterday on the trolls/apologists thread. But it seems potentially edifying to post it here.

Gaslighting


I am in the process of reading a book by psychoanalyst Theo L Dorpat
entitled 'Gaslighting, The Double Whammy, Interrogation, and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy and Analysis'. (1996) Dr. Dorpat has a chapter where he in which he these forms of therapeutic failure with cult dynamics--and makes use of findings by Margaret Singer, Cialdini and Temerlin.

(The Temerlins were a husband wife team and published some superb papers on how psychotherapy cults work. All are worth looking for and reading)

Dorpat notes that these methods of covertly controlling/therapy subverting communication can be perpetrated without one's being aware of it, and he faced that he had done this to patients and wanted to both clean up his own act--and educate his fellow practitioners--a form of self scrutiny, open communication and consciousness raising outreach to one's profession that distinguishes a true professional from someone running an LGAT.

Dorpat also wanted to get these forms of subtle malpractice on the map because these are not dramatic enough to be legally sanctionable---but can nevertheless subvert therapy. At best, it hinders the effectiveness of an otherwise good working alliance between counselor and client.

At worst these forms of toxic power imbalance can be part of the process of harming the training of professional therapists--and can at the very worst be part of the formation of a psychotherapy cult.

(from Dr Dorpat's website) "In treatment, the psychotherapist is in a position of power. Often, this power is unintentionally abused. While trying to embody a compassionate concern for patients, therapists use accepted techniques that can inadvertently lead to control, indoctrination, and therapeutic failure. Contrary to the stated tradition and values of psychotherapy, they subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them.

"The more gross kinds of patient abuse, deliberate ones such as sexual and financial exploitation, are expressly forbidden by professional organizations. However, there are no regulations discouraging the more covert forms of manipulation, which are not even considered exploitative by many clinicians..."

Dorpat writes: 'In both cults and (mismanged-my insertion--C)psychotherapy contexts where the therapist uses indoctrination methods, the cult leader or psychotherapist consciously or unconsciously communicates, (sometimes simultaneously) both the abusive message plus messages which conceal or distort the abusive message.

'Recall what I wrote in Chapter One about a kind of verbal abuse described by Elgin (1980) in which an apparently benign communication conceals as it were an abusive communication which Elgin calls a presupposition.(Dorpat, page 193--author's italics)

On pages 16 and 17 Dorpat gives examples from Elgin:

"If you really loved me you wouldnt go bowling".

(Presupposition) "You don't really love me"

Affects evoked: Guilt, Shame

"Example 2"

"Dont you c[/i]are about your children?"

(Presuppositions)

"You dont care about your children" ,"You should care about your children, its wrong not to."

Affects evoked: Guilt, Shame Depressive Affect

*(Corboy's note: The reader should keep in mind that these printed dialogue do not include the subtlties of non verbal communciation, such as voice inflection,
or facial micro expression that would convey a shaming or derisive impact. If these dialogues occurred in public, in front of an audience, we can imagine the impact would be heightened.)

If you want this book, go to sites like bookfinders.com or alibris.com and see if any copies are available.

Further info available here

[www.drteddorpat.com]

Note from Corboy: This information is posted for persons RECOVERING from harmful relationships.

Anyone who uses this information for nefarious and power abusive purposes will generate bad karma for themselves and deserves to incur a grade III anal fissure.

Continuing Education Module: Considerations for Professionals Who Serve
Non-Traditional Healing Projects

Social worker and psychoanalyst Dan Shaw served time in the entourage of a cultic leader. He liberated himself through internalizing the values taught in clinical social work--truthfulness, respect for the inherant dignity of the ordinary human person, and the obligation to do one's utmost as practitioner to safegard and enhance the personal autonomy of one's clients--not to foster their increased dependence.

Mr Shaw tells of how in one dysfunctional spiritual project, devotee therapists actually were encouraged to recruit their clients into the group--read the section of the paper under the heading 'Malignant Narcissistic Authoritarianism"

[www.danielshawlcsw.com]

The hazard for devotees who are also mental health professionals is that their occupation, unlike that of 'guru' or 'life coach' is clearly regulated by law, but 'guru-ing' and 'LGAT-ing' do not currently seem to be regulated by law with the same precision as psychotherapy--or for that matter, accountancy.

Robert S. Epstein in his book Keeping Boundaries:The Nature and Function of Therapeutic Boundaries (1994) writes on page 18:

'The therapist's role is that of a fiduciary (Frank and Frank 1991);(R.I.Simon 1987). The patient's compliance with treatment requires vulnerability and trust. Patients lack the objectivity and the expert knowledge to treat themselves, and must rely on professionals with special training. Peterson(1992) emphasized that some exploitative therapists attempt to disavow this responsiblity by disclaiming any disparity in the treatment relationship. They employ pseudo-egalitarianism to exculpate themselves with the excuse that the patient is a 'consenting adult.'

(eg: These pseudoegalitarians deny the existence of both the power imbalance in which they as poweholders are at advantage, by denying their accountability for responsible use of power they dis-avow that they are accountable to an ethos of care. A classic method of false empowerment is the favorite, 'There are no victims, only volunteers.' In this line of reasoning, there is no conscious way to acknowlege the power imbalance in which the person who claims its nonexistence--continues to stay on top--and shoves all accountability onto the underling the moment something goes wrong C)

In their book, Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lielienfeld, Lynn and Lohr provide a chapter on New Age therapies and discuss the fiduciary relationship in greater detail:

'Under the laws of most states, both licensed and unlicensed clinicians who hold themselves out to the general public as performing the functions of a therapist establish a relationship with their clients based on trust, confidence, and confidentiality. (Corboy comments--how is confidentiality maintained in an LGAT setting? Do LGATs sign paperwork promising to hold records, videotapes and recordings confidential? Many gurus collect adoring letters from devotees or demand written grovelling apologies as a price of regaining favor. Do they ever promise to keep such letters confidential or return them to anyone who later chooses to leave?)

Back to Lilienfeld and Lohr: 'In the law, when a relationship exists between individuals, based on trust and confidence, and one individual has greater knowledge, experience, training and skill, than the other, (that is, a power imbalance--C), then that relationship is generally considered in the eyes of the law to be a fiduciary relationship. In many states therapists are considered fiduciaries. Because of their disproportionate knowledge, training, and experience, fiduciaries are held to a higher standard of care and responsiblity for 1) the services provided to a client and 2) the appropriateness of the services to aid the client in overcoming problems.

'We propose' state the authors 'that all therapeutic relationships be considered fiduciary relationships and that the standard of care against which a therapist is judged be the standard applied to fiduciaries. That same standard should be applied to the New Age or traditional therapist, regardless of espoused ideology.'

(Lilienfeld Lynn and Lohr: Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, 2003, page 191)

'Clients have the right to know in advance that they are being subjected to experimental approaches. Therapists have the fiduciary obligation of informing clients when such methods are being used. Therapists have the further responsiblity of informing clients that alternative therapeutic approaches are available and that these approaches are based on methods commonly accepted within the professional psychological community....as fiduciaries, therapists must ensure that psychotherapy furthers the aims and purposes of clients (my italics-C), rather than adding to the prestige, self image, or feelings of power and control of the therapist. (Lilienfeld, Lynn and Lohr, 201)

(Or adds Corboy) 'Adding to the prestige, self image, or feelings of power and control of a charismatic guru or LGAT whose internalized image becomes co-mingled with a devotee-therapists' core self.

In this case, a situation described in article entitled 'The Group'

[www.culteducation.com]

3 therapists who were disciples of a secretive guru and who had recruited their own clients to become disciples of this guru, surrendered their licenses rather than face criminal charges. The erring therapists had also permitted this guru who was not trained in any way as a therapist, to function as their clinical supervisor. When threatened with publicity, the therapists seem to have chosen to surrender their licenses to protect their guru from public scrutiny.

Because he was not a professional or in any occupation regulated by law, the guru escaped legal consequences, while the disciple-therapists took the rap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2008 12:54AM by corboy.

Continuing Education--Confidentiality

Robert S Epstein has an entire chapter on confidentiality in his book, Keeping Boundaries:Maintaining Safety and Integrity in the Psychotherapeutic Process
(1994)

In the section, 'Counterindicated Forms of Release', Dr. Epstein writes:

'In the absence of an authorized release, requests for (patient) information from third parties should be refused. A breach of this rule is likely to seriously interfere with the patient's ability to trust the therapist. At times, such an impropriety can lead to injurious consequences that neither the therapist nor the patient could have anticipated...

'Third parties frequently make unauthorized requests. Such requests are often couched in ways calculated to elicit shame in the therapist. The embedded message is "How can you be such an unfeeling and uncooperative person as to refuse a simple request?"

'Because this induced feeling of shame appears to center around the high value that most therapists place on being helpful and facultative, it is important that therapists be prepared for the demeaning intonation and subtle pressure that frequently accompany unauthorized requests. (my use of bolding-C) Many people, even trained therapists, simply fail to understand the high risks involved.

'Some third parties, such as relatives of the patient, attorneys, journalists, and other health care professionals, are quite aware of the laws regarding confidentiality, but use guile to intimidate or trick the therapist
into revealing forbidden information. Therapists must undertand their obligations in this regard, regardless of whether anyone else does'(my underlining-C). (Epstein, page 191)

corboy,

You are FULL of wonderful information. That really helps put the whole thing in perspective. Thanks!

Anticult,

I do remember hearing talk of studies that were being conducted at The Schools to help get The Work on the map, so to speak. I wonder what ever came of it... or if it was even legit, because it was probably conducted by BK's loyal followers.

Probably not very objective, realisitic, or scientific... or credible.

-jj

Sigh...I earned my spurs years ago. Went to counseling from someone, who it turned out, was untrained, charismatic, dodged accountablity, and left me so utterly suspicious that it took YEARS for me to even begin to trust the eminently qualified shrink who helped me unpack things for real.

So when I began doing research, these were the pre-internet days. I had to get the info from books and medical journals written by and for professionals, which meant the sources met high standards.

The Epstein book was a very lucky find that I chanced upon at the bookstore for the local medical school.

Because these books tend to be expensive and hard to find, that is why I like to quote material.

If you are just getting started, I recommend Marilyn R. Peterson's book, At Personal Risk:Boundary Violations in Professional-Client Relationships, Norton, 1992.

It is easier to get into if one is just starting out, and there may be a paperback edition available, making it kinder to one's pocketbook.

Stuff published via academic and medical presses can be pricey unless you are fortunate enough to score a used copy or find it in the stacks at your friendly neighborhood med library. Psychoanalytic institutes often have in house libraries and may possibly be willing to let you drop in an photocopy an item--phone first and ask.

Whether you visit a med library or psychoanalytic institute, check first about parking. In some cases, public transportation may be more affordable, assuming you have the time.