I have noticed several threads in the psychology and psychiatry forums regarding EMDR, essentially lining-up as either skeptic or advocate-which truthfully is quite concerning, especially given some of the extreme, closed positions reflected.
As members of the medical and/or psychological sciences, we're all familiar with the spectre of "zeitgeist" and how innovations from every discipline have often met with stern resistance to changes in deeply entrenched belief systems (e.g., Copernicus, Darwin, Pasteur, etc.). I wrote about this in relation to EMDR in 2008 [see Russell,M. C. (2008). Scientific resistance toresearch, training and utilization of EMDR therapy in treating post-wardisorders. Social Science and Medicine, 67(11), 1737-1746].
Overzealous EMDR advocates, and the media, got far ahead of the science early on with mentioning of a single-session cure for PTSD, and understandably such claims were rebutted with calls for necessary scientific scrutiny. However, the question as to efficacy (Does EMDR work?) is no longer valid, with every major domestic and international scientific panel of PTSD experts speaking in one voice that it does.
The remaining question, that fuels the so-called controversy or debate on EMDR is the underlying theory, or mechanism of action (eye movements). And the evidence is inconclusive at this time. Any person saying otherwise, on either side of the fence, is engaging in selective bias.
So there is this wierd, EMDR therapy out there, and people have a reason to be skeptical, that something as simple-sounding as rapid, alternating eye movements or other sensory modality (audition, somatosensory), could possibly produce signficant therapeutic change equal to well-established behavioral and cognitive-behavioral therapies?
The easiest and most dangerous response to this query, is to lose our sense of curiosity and discovery. Folks, in the 21st century, we do not know how neurons encapsulate human experience in the form of the rich variety of memories that define our lives. We know that people can cognate or think, but cannot begin to prove how that occurs at the level of the neuron.
There are no empirically proven theories of human behavior-none! For instance, take systematic desensitization, a well-established exposure-based therapy put forth by Wolpe (1950s). There are multiple theories of mechanism of action (e.g., reciprocal inhibition, two-factor, corrective emotional experience, etc.)-none of these have or can be proven scientifically.
Don't believe me? If we cannot explain how a lumpy neuronal soma, with its dendritic branching, and gangly axonal features can encode, store, and retrieve memories of life experiences, than how do we explain what actually occurs within and between neurons during prolonged exposure or cognitive therapy that explains things like extinction? What answers you give, are all abstractions or theories, none of which are empirically proven as truths.
Our infantile understanding of the brain, human behavior, and therapeutic change, should give us all a dose of humility, and an openness to new ideas, even if they rival what some "authorities" tell us are truths. They really don't know either.
So when the global scientific community consensus is that EMDR is working, despite violating nearly every bedrock principle of exposure therapy, CBT, and talk therapy (e.g., negatively reinforcing client escape/avoidant behaviors of traumatic stimuli, not teaching/practicing coping skills, not utilizing cognitive restructuring or rational disputation, not requiring 40-60 hours of homework assignments, not teaching competitive, reciprocal response, not engaging in therapist interpretations, requiring minimal client disclosure and dialogue with therapist, etc.), rather than dismiss as "only" exposure, distraction etc., think of what you're saying.
If EMDR is as effective as exposure therapy, CBT etc., as the majority of the scientific community says it is, despite violating long held beliefs of therapeutic change, AND is using superfluous, meaningless, or inconsequential eye movements.....what does that say about these other psychotherapies and our models of human change?
The scientist, the human nature in us, begs for explanation and investigation, not outright dismissal, repeating some authoritative figure, or policy statement. The zeitgeist will always strive to discredit and stifle competition...it will be up to YOU, the next generation of scientist-practitioners or practitioner-scholars to become the future authorities. Do not let the current mainstream, popular views, in either extreme, keep you from searching for your own answers.
As members of the medical and/or psychological sciences, we're all familiar with the spectre of "zeitgeist" and how innovations from every discipline have often met with stern resistance to changes in deeply entrenched belief systems (e.g., Copernicus, Darwin, Pasteur, etc.). I wrote about this in relation to EMDR in 2008 [see Russell,M. C. (2008). Scientific resistance toresearch, training and utilization of EMDR therapy in treating post-wardisorders. Social Science and Medicine, 67(11), 1737-1746].
Overzealous EMDR advocates, and the media, got far ahead of the science early on with mentioning of a single-session cure for PTSD, and understandably such claims were rebutted with calls for necessary scientific scrutiny. However, the question as to efficacy (Does EMDR work?) is no longer valid, with every major domestic and international scientific panel of PTSD experts speaking in one voice that it does.
The remaining question, that fuels the so-called controversy or debate on EMDR is the underlying theory, or mechanism of action (eye movements). And the evidence is inconclusive at this time. Any person saying otherwise, on either side of the fence, is engaging in selective bias.
So there is this wierd, EMDR therapy out there, and people have a reason to be skeptical, that something as simple-sounding as rapid, alternating eye movements or other sensory modality (audition, somatosensory), could possibly produce signficant therapeutic change equal to well-established behavioral and cognitive-behavioral therapies?
The easiest and most dangerous response to this query, is to lose our sense of curiosity and discovery. Folks, in the 21st century, we do not know how neurons encapsulate human experience in the form of the rich variety of memories that define our lives. We know that people can cognate or think, but cannot begin to prove how that occurs at the level of the neuron.
There are no empirically proven theories of human behavior-none! For instance, take systematic desensitization, a well-established exposure-based therapy put forth by Wolpe (1950s). There are multiple theories of mechanism of action (e.g., reciprocal inhibition, two-factor, corrective emotional experience, etc.)-none of these have or can be proven scientifically.
Don't believe me? If we cannot explain how a lumpy neuronal soma, with its dendritic branching, and gangly axonal features can encode, store, and retrieve memories of life experiences, than how do we explain what actually occurs within and between neurons during prolonged exposure or cognitive therapy that explains things like extinction? What answers you give, are all abstractions or theories, none of which are empirically proven as truths.
Our infantile understanding of the brain, human behavior, and therapeutic change, should give us all a dose of humility, and an openness to new ideas, even if they rival what some "authorities" tell us are truths. They really don't know either.
So when the global scientific community consensus is that EMDR is working, despite violating nearly every bedrock principle of exposure therapy, CBT, and talk therapy (e.g., negatively reinforcing client escape/avoidant behaviors of traumatic stimuli, not teaching/practicing coping skills, not utilizing cognitive restructuring or rational disputation, not requiring 40-60 hours of homework assignments, not teaching competitive, reciprocal response, not engaging in therapist interpretations, requiring minimal client disclosure and dialogue with therapist, etc.), rather than dismiss as "only" exposure, distraction etc., think of what you're saying.
If EMDR is as effective as exposure therapy, CBT etc., as the majority of the scientific community says it is, despite violating long held beliefs of therapeutic change, AND is using superfluous, meaningless, or inconsequential eye movements.....what does that say about these other psychotherapies and our models of human change?
The scientist, the human nature in us, begs for explanation and investigation, not outright dismissal, repeating some authoritative figure, or policy statement. The zeitgeist will always strive to discredit and stifle competition...it will be up to YOU, the next generation of scientist-practitioners or practitioner-scholars to become the future authorities. Do not let the current mainstream, popular views, in either extreme, keep you from searching for your own answers.
Last edited:
