by Tim Brunson, PhD
The relevance of suggestion and imagination as a tool for human transformation is still inadequately being explored. On one hand, the benefits of considering the validity of volition as a tool is largely prevented by those self-styled critical thinkers who sincerely believe that they are protecting the public rather than more likely defending the sanctity of their identity. They insist that their well-established and often legally protected beliefs are valid and supported by scientific evidence. Yet, when actually explored, almost always the strength of their thinking is not found in solid scientific research but rather in popularly held beliefs and editorials that grace staid academic journals. On the other hand, the foes of these skeptics are most likely idealistic thinkers, who insist that what they wish to believe is in fact true. Clearly, there must be a middle ground that both addresses unfiltered reality and allows space for human intellectual evolution to occur.
The advancement of intellectual understanding, which must center on epistemological traditions, almost always has all the sophistication of a sausage factory. The process includes a multitude of components, which are amalgamated in a rather disgustingly messy manner. Innovative ideas, such as the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that the Earth is indeed rotund, and that the brain has a high degree of plasticity, first had to go through stages where Inquisitors resisted with a vengeance what they considered to be heretical change. That was until the preponderance of evidence became so overwhelming that just a few bolder authorities began to ward off criticisms of their colleagues as they slowly embraced the new paradigms. Still many legacies, such as the belief in the subconscious mind, continue to linger as adherents to the old way of thinking insist in integrating their fundamentalist thinking into the emerging concepts. This results in the self-delusion that they are open-minded thinkers.
Another obstacle to open-mindedly, yet rationally and empirically accepting new concepts is the absolute refusal to listen to ideas that come from those who do not fit in with the reader or listener's self-concept. That is, these are people who don't have the listener's education, licenses, or other credentials. This results in one-dimensional thinking and beliefs. The resistance to divergent thinking and the almost intellectually incestuous obsession with vindication of one's limited views means that many people constantly entrain to the level of mediocrity that is acceptable at the moment. Intellectual evolution is almost always can be characterized as a process of achieving a (hopefully) higher level of mediocrity that by the time of its acceptance is already obsolete. This low-risk strategy not only vindicates one's self-importance. It is deemed to be safe in that we avoid rejection and may even justify our narrow-mindedness by believing that as clinicians we are less likely to be challenged legally.
Unfortunately, this means also means that divergent thinkers are normally shunned and become outcasts, who cannot obtain prestigious academic positions and rarely get published. Immediately, one such person comes to mind. Although that he had a doctorate from a non-regionally accredited university was not a factor, his open rejection of then en vogue ideas resulted in closed doors to university positions leaving tutoring children of the wealthy and later a low-paid civil service position as his only available occupation. It was not until a curious metaphysician confirmed one of his ideas that he was accepted among fellow scientists. In addition to Albert Einstein, one of history's most famous divergent thinkers was the alchemist Sir Isaac Newton, whose ideas took over a hundred years to become widely accepted.
What does this mean to the concepts that surround the study of the mind, mental health, and psychology? This myopic resistance to innovation applies to intellectual history of mind-related traditions as well. The typical struggle with new concepts – especially those which tend to be a little incredulous – combined with the rejection of those thinkers who have not entered the inner sanctum of acceptable mediocrity has been found time and time again within the realm of the study of the mind. When a new idea immerges, it immediately creates the question whether the skill set of the current stakeholders will remain relevant. This threat appears to be and has always been a challenge to the majority thus creating an understandable instinctual condemnation. The new idea and those who an advocate it are ridiculed and torn appart in the mainstream literature. The fact that they dare to question the status quo becomes the de facto reason that they are wrong. Ironically, too often their ideas and methods are rapidly labeled as pseudoscience without any valid scientific research to the contrary.
More so than physiology and medicine, mind "sciences" are deeply imbued with extremely deep religious and/or spiritual foundations with a more than tinge of philosophy. Yes, in many ways the art and science of psychology is nothing more than applied philosophy coupled with legal sanctions, certifications, and academic credentials. Yet unlike philosophy, which tends to be more readily amenable and even welcoming of evolutionary and revolutionary change, advances in psychology almost always come reluctantly.
Like most of conceptual and even empirical endeavors, the foundations of psychology are found in religious doctrine that once explained everything cosmological to include gravity, which at one point was clarified in terms of human sin. The schism that suddenly allowed science to emerge from religious doctrine resulting in investigations into the nature of the mind was for the most part philosophical, not scientific. In fact, the other-than-conscious awareness philosophical concept of 18th century German Idealist Friedrich Schiller, once accepted and popularized by Sigmund Freud, became the basis of psychoanalysis and worked its way into the a priori assumptions of the most ardent contemporary, self-styled scientific skeptic. Paradoxically, too many of these vociferous individuals base their limiting ideas on concepts with absolutely no empirical merit. Instead, they too often quote each other as sources vindicating their pontifications. More than once I have reviewed ridiculous and highly opinionated books by credentialed and highly respected mental health authorities, which in turn are citied by subsequent equally and likewise opinionated authors. (The over reliance on citation-based writing among scientific writers is probably the most serious flaw in epistemological discourse at this time. Too often it does little but create a mutual admiration society that is unscientific and clearly retards scientific thinking. That automatic acceptance of an idea merely because someone noteworthy previously or currently espoused it, while it may be applicable to the case laws in the halls of jurisprudence, it is hardly an example of scientific or rational thinking. Unfortunately for them, this statement is "evidence-based.")
Currently, the world of mental health accepts post-Freudian ideas such as B.F. Skinner's Behavioral Therapy and Aaron T. Beck's Cognitive Therapy. Since their original works, these concepts have been combined into a hybrid called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which currently appears to be the most fashionable approach in mental health. While the focus on behavior and human cognition has proven in numerous cases to produce what appears to be favorable results, it is almost humorous that CBT advocates insist on claiming that their views are credible because their approach is science-based and thus more empirical than others. Yet while deluding themselves that this is the source of their validity, as the efficacy of CBT essentially relies on the subjective experience of the patient or client, even when the three-step scientific approach is applied, a humongous amount of data is collected, and results replicated in subsequent studies, while it may in fact be the best approach available at the moment, the implication that it is supported by solid scientific research is much akin to insisting that the emperor is in fact clothed. Oddly, much of this decades-old concept's "credibility" comes not from its scientific credentials, but instead its popularity.
Noteworthy are the numerous other approaches that have once been accepted and which are still significantly clung to by many professionals. Among these are not only Freudian psychoanalysis and psychodynamics, but Transactional Analysis, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), and Gestalt Therapy, and even Neurolinguistic Programming. (Interestingly, although volumes have been written by the skeptics in regard to NLP, which is over 40 years old, essentially it is based upon other widely accepted theories and has numerous similarities to the currently fashionable CBT.) While there seem to be trends within the mental health communities, it appears that craze has more influence than anyone is willing to admit. Strangely, this fashion-based tendency toward credibility can be also seen by the wider than justified acceptance of mindfulness therapy concepts. Although I am very open to Buddhist-based thinking – especially has I have studied under several Tibetan abbots and attended numerous teachings conducted by the Dalai Lama – the paucity of mindfulness research literature is inverse to its acceptability.
If one could get out of the non-divergent mode long enough to notice what it going on outside the world of mental health, numerous epiphanies should occur. These can be found largely in the world of artificial intelligence and their closely related fields. The inventor Ray Kurzweil, whose innovations involving applying mind-science to commercialized technologies has revolutionized many aspects of our lives, has predicted that efforts to replicate the human mind within computers and robots will probably mean that AI will surpass human capabilities by the year 2045. Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other schools around the globe have been in a virtual dead-heat race to replicate the mind. This requires an objective understanding of mental functioning in ways that have been unfettered by psychological traditions and more so impacted by both algorithmically linear and parallel reasoning. When it comes to understanding the human mind, as they are not chastised for having ideas not acceptable to peer-review and established psychological organizations, their modeling of the human mind has achieved levels of understanding that has never been accomplished by the most established psychological and psychiatric associations. These scientists were viewing the systemic organization of the human brain decades before the most recent DSM committee came to the same realization.
Another innovation has been rapidly occurring in the world of neuroscience as imaging technologies have allowed scientists to delve increasingly deep into the mechanics of the human brain and nervous system. Such work has been accomplished by scientists as Nobel Prize winner Erick Kandel, MD, who discovered the neurological basis of long-term memory formation, and the often unjustifiably maligned work of Daniel Amen, MD, who has been involved with the scanning of the human brain and has studied the relationship between substrate activation and human behavior. While I have reviewed numerous books and pondered many peer-reviewed articles that may off-handedly used the "neuro" prefix as a way to make the author(s) sound more hip, too often this embellishment is done for little other purpose than to vindicate worn out theories to which many less cognitively flexible minds are wedded.
In addition to what we are learning from AI researchers and neurologists, there is another dimension that must be explored. That is the concept of energy. Although bringing up the terms Energy Psychology and Energy Medicine – albeit despite at least some acceptance among the inertia-laden American Psychological Association – whenever I used them I normally get pounded by well-meaning e-mails in which respected colleagues from around the world seek to enlighten me as to the error of my ways – despite the fact that their only substantive arguments are based upon fashionable trends, editorials, and not valid scientific studies.
While realizing that there is a tremendous amount of research needed before I will fully accept EP and EM and I am suspicious of the cult-like bandwagon that may of their followers seem to be on, I am not so quick to dismiss them outright. This is for several reasons. In reviewing a tremendous amount of more mainstream literature, it seems that the idea that thoughts are related to energy is being increasingly discussed. Secondly, having extensively studied Buddhist psychotherapy – to include higher-level tantric practices – and sat through at least one Mind and Life Institute conference during which top scientists discussed contemporary neurological research with the Dalai Lama, I have seen relationships between volitional intentions to alter the body's energy distribution and the effects on a person's mental health. This has been further reinforced by what I have learned directly from Dr. Amen in regards the impact of neuro-substrate activation and human behavior and the Brain Change Therapy work of Carol Kershaw, EdD, and Bill Wade, Phd. (Drs. Kershaw and Wade are Advisory Board members of this Institute.)
What I am getting out of this is that the trends in mental health and mind science will eventually and inevitably change – albeit over the "dead bodies" of many skeptics who will insist on obsessively holding on to their more safe, fashionable ideas while prematurely lambasting everyone else as followers of pseudoscience. Strangely enough, many of the concepts closely held of by the former will somehow creep into the next set of widely acceptable ideas. More than likely if history repeats itself, mind science will have more aspects of AI, neurology, and energy-based thinking than many now feel comfortable. On the other hand, idealists – who are supposedly the main target of these skeptics – will still insist that their wishful thinking will prevail. I am not saying that we will never find a scientific basis for their clearly fringe beliefs. Ideas such as channeling spirits and exploring past lives will not be significantly mainstream influences for the time being.
Oddly enough, my own field of hypnotherapy will be influenced heavily by the evolution of mind sciences. Too much of my field is severely affected by the clearly unscientific even though several associations insist on claiming that their members are professionals and then recklessly insert more fashionable buzzwords into their conference agendas. If this field is to survive and eventually gain cultural credibility, it absolutely must follow the trends – albeit cumbersome – of the mental health professions. This includes freeing itself from its rampant idealism and Freudian-era thinking. Although it tends to follow mental health trends – even though it lags by a few decades in evolution – once the world of psychology advances past its current obsession with CBT and moves into a more systemic mode – which apparently is reflected in DSM-5, hopefully hypnotherapy will follow. The Advanced Neuro-Noetic Hypnosis model that is being promoted by this Institute is an example of a systemic approach that already fully incorporates the latest thinking in AI, neurology, and volitional energy manipulation. However, in retrospect, it appears to be about a decade ahead of what current thinking in mental health and probably about forty years ahead of most contemporary hypnotherapy writers.
Tim Brunson, PhD, is the founder and Executive Director of The International Hypnosis Research Institute.
Posted: 08/26/2014
